ATLANTA --- Tuesday's arguments before the Georgia Supreme Court in the appeal of a man arrested in Augusta for child molestation included a unique twist: Lawyers on both sides agreed on nearly everything.
They agreed that a new Georgia law requires that judges who are about to accept a guilty plea make sure anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen understands that deportation is likely.
They disagreed, however, on whether failure to warn a defendant is a mistake that can only be fixed by throwing out the plea or whether it was a harmless foul.
The case involves Lawrence Rupert Smith, who was born in Panama and pleaded guilty but mentally ill to three counts of child molestation after a security officer found him partially undressed with a 7-year-old girl in a parked car near Bush Field in 2002. Smith filed an appeal without the help of a lawyer, but it was denied because it was filed after the deadline. He appealed that decision, which the Court of Appeals denied, so he appealed again.
In February he gained the help of a Mercer University professor and her third-year law students.
"I'm in the happy position of agreeing with much of what the state has argued," professor Sarah Gerwig-Moore said Tuesday,
Because Smith has been notified that federal officials are planning to deport him, the failure to warn him during sentencing was a serious breach, she argued.
But no testimony or evidence of his foreign citizenship was given during the sentencing hearing. Gerwig-Moore said the Supreme Court could order a hearing on his citizenship. If he is Panamanian, then he should be given the chance to change his plea and face a trial.
Assistant District Attorney Charles Sheppard told the seven justices he agrees a citizenship hearing might be required, and he agrees that judges are bound by the law to warn a noncitizen about the possibility of deportation. He disagrees, though, that Smith should be given a chance for a new plea.
The Supreme Court won't make a decision for several months.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010. All Rights Reserved.
The law interpretation has become so complex as to make every hair worth splitting numerous times. While I'm certain this is great fun for the lawyers and judges, it drives the layman nuts. Deportation means different things to the casual observer than it does to the intent of the law. The perv in question will either be killed when returned to his home country (not likely) or he'll be immediately released to return to America (likely) because Panama isn't going to pay to keep him locked up for something he did elsewhere. Every child molester should be returned to the best health possible following conviction and then immediately harvested for every usable organ. The rest can be composted. Not only will there be no future threat from the perv, but he can be said to be "giving back to the community". The perfect solution, to the layman.
JC, sounds like a perefect solution to me. The lawyers get paid whether they win or lose. Seems we should get re-imursed for their services some how and your solution fits the bill, espeecially for child molesters.
Makes good sense to me, Johnston! Recycle the pervs!
Who would think that a felony conviction would NOT result in deportation?