SJC hears dispute over whether defendant deserves evidentiary hearing after plea counseladmitted limited immigration advice

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Jorge L. Santana on whether the trial judge abused his discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing after plea counsel filed an affidavit saying he had given only limited immigration-related advice at the plea colloquy.

Casey Reilly, attorney for Jorge L. Santana, told the court that plea counsel—s one-word confirmation on the record that he had discussed immigration consequences did not show the substance of the discussion and that the plea-record citation to Commonwealth v. Clark did not resolve whether the defendant received the specific warnings required under later decisions. "We still do not have any facts from the plea colloquy as to what the substance of that conversation was between attorney Ortiz and his client," Reilly said, urging that "remand for an evidentiary hearing is particularly important and would be necessary in this case."

Jennifer Cohen, arguing for the Commonwealth, responded that because the trial judge here was both the plea judge and the motion judge, he did not abuse his discretion by resolving the matter on the papers. "He…