Opinion recap: Court refuses to apply Padilla v. Kentucky retroactively : SCOTUSblog:
In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Supreme Court in a path-breaking decision held that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment could be based on the failure to inform a criminal defendant of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction before entering into a plea agreement. Earlier this week, in Chaidez v. United States, Justice Kagan, writing for six other Justices, concluded that, under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane (1989), Padilla should not apply retroactively to criminal convictions entered before March 2010.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented. She reasoned that, rather than establish a new rule, Padilla “did nothing more than apply the existing rule ofStrickland v. Washington (1984),” governing ineffective assistance of counsel, “in a new setting.”
Chaidez is the latest application of the Teague v. Lane retroactivity test. By most accounts, Padilla represented a significant change in the law. Consequently, it proved challenging for Chaidez to prevail in showing that, for retroactivity purposes, Padilla did not in fact create a “new” or “novel” rule. A majority of the Court ruled that the change in the law was sufficiently significant that it should not apply retroactively."
'via Blog this'
According to United States Supreme court, criminal defense attorneys must advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. I think it is very important topic that people should know and sharing this article you have done good job.
ReplyDeleteLAPD corruption