Commonwealth v. Villalobos
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
The question posed by the District Court judge’s report is whether a defendant may withdraw an admission to sufficient facts notwithstanding his having been advised pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 29D, of each of the specified immigration consequences, both orally and in a writing memorializing the same, because the statutory language fails to apprise him of changes in Federal immigration law that, in certain instances, treat an admission to sufficient facts as equivalent to a conviction. We answer the reported question: “No.”
Following the defendant’s admission to sufficient facts on a complaint…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Frizado v. FrizadoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
- In the Matter of a John Doe Grand Jury InvestigationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Zullo v. GoguenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
- Wooldridge v. HickeyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
- Commonwealth v. RzepphiewskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. VillalobosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
- Commonwealth v. EstradaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2007
- Commonwealth v. CartagenaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008