Al-Aridi v. Commonwealth, 404 S.W.3d 210

Al-Aridi, an Iraqi refugee and U.S. permanent resident in Louisville, Kentucky, was charged July 1, 2001 with third-degree sexual abuse (Class A misdemeanor) for touching a 15-year-old boy's buttocks without consent.
He pleaded guilty on January 2, 2002, receiving a 90-day sentence and $92.35 in costs; he served the sentence and was released.
In October 2010, nearly nine years later, Al-Aridi moved to vacate his plea under CR 60.02(3), claiming ineffective assistance for failing to advise him of immigration consequences and that he would have challenged the charge if properly informed.
At a January 20, 2011 hearing, the district court concluded Padilla did not control the case and denied relief on January 21, 2011.
On appeal, the circuit court affirmed on a different basis, holding that CR 60.02 was not the proper vehicle and that relief was untimely; it suggested RCr 11.42 as the proper mechanism and noted the eight-year delay without explanation.
This Court ultimately agrees to affirm, adopting Chaidez's retroactivity ruling to hold Padilla does not apply retroactively, given the conviction's finality before Padilla.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Padilla have retroactive effect under Chaidez?	Al-Aridi argues Padilla applies and retroactively invalidates consequences of plea.	Commonwealth contends Padilla does not apply retroactively to final convictions.	Padilla not retroactive; Chaidez controls.
Proper vehicle for relief and timeliness under CR 60.02 vs RCr 11.42	CR 60.02 was appropriate under ineffective assistance framework.	RCr 11.42 should have been used; motion untimely under CR 60.02.	Relief denied on retroactivity grounds; fate of procedural vehicle reserved for other reasoning.

Stiger v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 230 (Ky.2012) (discusses Padilla context in plea ineffectiveness)
Pridham v. Commonwealth, 394 S.W.3d 867 (Ky.2012) (Padilla applied to plea ineffectiveness in Ky.; retroactivity unresolved)