## 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

1. Whether *Padilla v. Kentucky* applies retroactively on collateral review to convictions that became final before *Padilla* was decided.
2. 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.


Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013)