Hudson County Criminal Lawyer Blog
In State v. Juan C. Hernandez-Peralta (decided July 22, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court answered a practical question that comes up all the time in criminal practice: how far does a defense lawyer have to go to investigate a client’s immigration status? The Court held that, on the facts of this case, sentencing counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for asking, “Are you a U.S. citizen?”, getting a clear “yes”, and relying on that answer, even though the client later turned out to be a noncitizen who faced deportation.
The underlying case started with a series of burglaries and a robbery in Lakewood in 2019. Hernandez-Peralta pled guilty to three counts of third-degree burglary and one count of second-degree robbery. At his plea hearing, he told the judge he was a U.S. citizen and said he was born in New York. On the standard New Jersey plea form, he also answered that he was a citizen. Despite that answer, his plea lawyer still went through the immigration questions and warned him that if he was not a citizen, his guilty plea could lead to removal from the United States and block him from legally re-entering.
The presentence report, however, told a slightly different story. It listed his place of birth as Mexico, noted that he came to New York as a young child. The report also left several fields blank, including “Alien Status” and “Citizenship.” At sentencing, a different public defender represented him. She had the presentence report, reviewed it with him, and asked him directly if he was a U.S. citizen. Once again, he said yes. She did not independently investigate his status, obtain immigration records, or give case-specific immigration advice. The negotiated sentence, Recovery Court probation with a backup NERA prison term, was imposed.
Years later, after he violated Recovery Court, landed in state prison and received an immigration detainer saying he would be deported, Hernandez-Peralta filed for post-conviction relief (PCR). He claimed his lawyers were ineffective because he was not properly advised about the immigration consequences of his plea. The PCR judge found plea counsel was effective (because he went through the plea form and gave the standard Padilla-type warnings), but held that sentencing counsel was ineffective. In the PCR court’s view, the fact that the presentence report showed a foreign birth, a mother living in Mexico, and blank citizenship fields meant counsel had a duty to dig deeper instead of simply accepting his “I’m a citizen” answer. The Appellate Division largely went along with that view on the performance side, though it sent the case back for a closer look at prejudice.
The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. Applying the familiar Strickland test, the Court focused on the performance prong and held that sentencing counsel’s conduct was not objectively unreasonable. The Court stressed a few key points: (1) the defendant repeatedly and unequivocally claimed to be a U.S. citizen to his lawyer, the court, and on the plea form; (2) the presentence report did not clearly show that he was a noncitizen, being born in Mexico and having relatives abroad are both consistent with citizenship through naturalization or derivative citizenship; and (3) plea counsel had already warned him that, if he was not a citizen, his plea could lead to removal. Under those circumstances, the Court refused to create a constitutional rule that defense lawyers must independently verify citizenship status whenever some detail in the file might raise a question.
For criminal practitioners, Hernandez-Peralta draws an important line. The case does not relieve us of our duty under Padilla v. Kentucky to raise immigration consequences and give accurate advice when the law is clear. But it does say that, where a client confidently and consistently identifies as a U.S. citizen and the record does not clearly contradict that claim, the Constitution does not require defense counsel to become an immigration investigator or document-verification service. In New Jersey, simply asking the question, giving the standard warnings, and reasonably relying on a clear “yes, I’m a citizen” is not, by itself, ineffective assistance of counsel.