Tennessee appellate panel hears bid by Canadian man to withdraw guilty plea over immigration impact

A Tennessee appellate panel heard arguments on whether Kenneth Street, a Canadian national, may withdraw a guilty plea he entered in Hamilton County after reaching a plea agreement to leave custody, defense attorney Mr. McDougall said during oral argument.

The panel heard competing arguments over whether Street’s plea was knowing and voluntary and whether the appeal should be dismissed for inadequate briefing. Abigail Hornsby, arguing for the state, urged dismissal for waiver and said the record shows Street and his attorney were warned that the plea could have immigration or travel consequences.

Mr. McDougall told the panel that Street, described in the record as a 67‑year‑old quadriplegic who had five asthma attacks while detained, pleaded to obtain release from jail and access to medication. "He pleaded. Three days later, after his plea, he went to the judge that had originally had him plead guilty and asked to go ahead and withdraw his plea," McDougall said. He described delays in having Street’s case heard because of a COVID outbreak in the jail pod and said Street was held about 12 days at the Hamilton County Jail.

The defense relied on the record and on Padilla v. Kentucky to argue that Street was not adequately informed of how the plea would affect his ability to cross the U.S.‑Canada border and that once he learned of the immigration/travel consequences he sought to withdraw. "Once he found out that this plea would prevent him from crossing the border, he wished to go ahead and withdraw it," McDougall said.

Hornsby replied that the appeal should be dismissed for procedural waiver because of briefing defects and late filings. She said the attorney who represented Street during plea negotiations had advised him "that there could be adverse immigration consequences and the defendant should have spoken to an immigration attorney before pleading guilty." Hornsby added that the record shows the attorney spent substantial time with Street and that Street testified at the plea‑withdrawal hearing that he understood the plea and that it was knowing and voluntary.

The panel asked questions about whether the record showed that Street intended to immigrate to the United States or merely traveled back and forth. Hornsby said the record does not show an intent to immigrate and that available evidence suggests travel between Canada and the United States.

The court did not announce a ruling at the hearing. The presiding judge told counsel, "we will, issue, an opinion shortly." The panel gave no immediate direction on the state's request to dismiss for inadequate briefing.

The arguments focused on (1) whether the appeal should be dismissed because of briefing defects and waiver, (2) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary in light of advice about possible immigration or travel consequences, and (3) whether the trial court erred by denying withdrawal under Rule 32(f) procedures referenced in the record.

No formal decision was announced from the bench at the close of oral argument; the panel’s forthcoming written opinion will resolve the procedural and substantive questions appealed from the criminal court.

Background context from the hearing record: Mr. Street was arrested after a traffic stop in Chattanooga and detained in Hamilton County. The record indicates he pleaded guilty to resolve cases and was later advised by an immigration attorney that the plea affected his ability to cross the border. The transcript reflects that an earlier judge (Judge Patterson) and another judge (Judge Greenholtz) considered related motions at earlier stages; those prior rulings are part of the appeal record before the current panel.