What issue related to the right to counsel was addressed in Padilla v. Kentucky?

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel specifically relating to the obligation of defense attorneys to inform their clients about the immigration consequences of guilty pleas. The case highlighted the importance of proper legal representation and the duty of a lawyer to provide competent counsel, which includes making clients aware of significant factors that may affect their future, such as deportation risks. The ruling underscored that failing to provide this crucial information constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The other options, while related to the broader topic of criminal justice, do not directly pertain to the core issue of the case. Plea bargains were not the focus of Padilla v. Kentucky; rather, the case revolved around how the plea deal impacted the defendant's immigration status. Mental illness does not specifically relate to the context of Padilla, which was primarily concerned with immigration issues and the consequences of legal advice. Similarly, while self-representation is an important concept in legal proceedings, it was not relevant in the context of Padilla, where the discussion was focused on the performance and responsibilities of appointed counsel.