Campos v. State
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 54
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Campos was 17 when charged with felony simple robbery for gang benefit in May 2009; he has been a lawful permanent resident since 2002.
- The state sought adult certification; Campos pleaded guilty in July 2009 to an amended simple-robbery charge under a plea agreement that stayed imposition for three years with probation and a 365-day workhouse.
- Campos did not discuss his immigration status with counsel and was not provided the general immigration advisory required by Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.01, subd. 1(6)(i).
- In March 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held that counsel must advise whether a plea carries a risk of deportation; failure to do so can render counsel ineffective under Strickland.
- Campos moved in June 2010 to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel due to not being informed of immigration consequences and that deportation would result from the plea.
- The district court held Padilla does not apply retroactively and denied Campos’s motion; the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for consideration of Campos’s IAC claim under Padilla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Padilla apply retroactively to collateral attacks on guilty pleas? | Campos argues Padilla applies retroactively to his postconviction claim. | State argues Padilla is not retroactive under Teague. | Padilla does not announce a new rule for retroactivity; remand for IAC consideration under Padilla. |
| Does Padilla announce a new rule of criminal procedure for retroactivity analysis? | Campos contends Padilla creates a new rule triggered by collateral challenges to pleas. | State contends Padilla is a predictable extension of Strickland; retroactivity analysis is necessary. | Padilla does not announce a new rule; Teague retroactivity not triggered in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court, 2010) (counsel must advise client regarding risk of deportation; not categorically collateral consequence)
- Alanis v. State, 583 N.W.2d 573 (Minn. 1998) (immigration consequences are collateral; no duty to warn if direct consequences are not implicated)
- Danforth v. State, 761 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 2009) (Teague retroactivity framework adopted in Minnesota")
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court, 1989) (new-rule retroactivity and watershed rule concepts)
- Houston v. State, 702 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2005) (de novo review of retroactivity questions under Teague)