Facts
- Roselva Chaidez, a lawful permanent resident, participated in an insurance fraud scheme and received about $1,200.
- In 2004, she pleaded guilty in federal court to two counts of mail fraud and admitted the fraud involved more than $10,000 in losses.
- Her attorney did not advise that the plea-based conviction would make her deportable under federal immigration law.
- In 2009, immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings based on the 2004 conviction.
- Chaidez sought a writ of coram nobis in the convicting court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to advise about deportation consequences.
- While her petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise noncitizens about deportation risk from a guilty plea.
- The district court granted relief, concluding Padilla applied to Chaidez’s already-final conviction; the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding Padilla nonretroactive.
Issues
- Whether Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively on collateral review to convictions that became final before Padilla was decided.
- Whether Padilla announced a “new rule” of criminal procedure under Teague v. Lane or merely applied existing Strickland v. Washington doctrine.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court held that Padilla announced a “new rule” under Teague.
- Because Chaidez’s conviction was final before Padilla, she could not invoke Padilla to obtain collateral relief.
- Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion (joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito).
- Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment.
- Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ginsburg.
Legal Principles
- Under Teague v. Lane, new rules of criminal procedure generally do not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review when the rule is announced.
- A decision announces a “new rule” if its result was not dictated by existing precedent at the time the conviction became final (i.e., not apparent to all reasonable jurists).
- Padilla was a new rule because it resolved an open question about whether the Sixth Amendment’s effective-assistance duty includes advice about deportation consequences, an area many courts had treated as outside Sixth Amendment requirements.
- A rule that changes the prevailing approach in most jurisdictions is strong evidence it was not dictated by prior precedent for Teague purposes.
Conclusion
The Court held that Padilla’s requirement that defense counsel advise about deportation risk from a guilty plea is not retroactive on collateral review, barring defendants with convictions final before Padilla from obtaining relief based solely on the absence of such advice.