Chaidez v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17546
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Chaidez, a lawful permanent resident since 1977, pled guilty to two counts of mail fraud in 2003 and received four years' probation.
- Removal proceedings were initiated in 2009 after Chaidez sought citizenship and was found deportable as an aggravated felon due to her plea.
- Chaidez filed a coram nobis petition in 2010 claiming ineffective assistance for not advising her of immigration consequences of the plea.
- Padilla v. Kentucky was decided March 2010; Chaidez sought application of Padilla to her case on collateral review.
- The district court granted relief, vacating the conviction, reasoning Padilla applied retroactively; the government appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding Padilla announced a new rule under Teague and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Padilla announce a new rule under Teague? | Chaidez: Padilla was an application of Strickland, not a new rule. | USA: Padilla announced a new rule expanding Sixth Amendment duty. | Padilla announced a new rule under Teague. |
| Is Padilla retroactive on collateral review? | Chaidez: retroactive under Teague as old rule; merits of Strickland-guided inquiry apply. | USA: retroactivity depends on Teague exceptions; Padilla is new and not retroactive. | Padilla is a new rule and not retroactive on collateral review. |
| Does coram nobis extend to relief from final convictions given Padilla? | Chaidez: coram nobis appropriate to address ineffective assistance claims. | USA: Teague retroactivity governs whether relief is available on collateral review. | Not separately dispositive; Teague controls the retroactivity analysis. |
| What is the proper Teague framework for Strickland-based claims in Padilla's context? | Chaidez: Padilla extends Strickland; should be old rule if compelled by precedent. | USA: Padilla extends Strickland but may create a new rule under Teague. | Padilla constitutes a new rule under Teague; not retroactive. |
| Was the majority's conclusion in Padilla dictated by existing precedent? | Chaidez: diverse pre-Padilla authority suggested no new rule; reasonable minds could differ. | USA: Padilla reasonably interprets Strickland; not dictated by precedent. | Padilla announced a new rule; not dictated by existing precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Supreme Court 2010) (deportation risk central to Sixth Amendment effective assistance analysis)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court 1989) (new vs. old rule governs retroactivity on collateral review)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court 1985) (ineffective assistance in plea context guided by Strickland)
- Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227 (Supreme Court 1990) (Teague framework and retroactivity considerations)
- Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 (Supreme Court 1990) (new rule depends on whether precedent dictated the result)
- Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (Padilla applied as Strickland-based but issue of retroactivity debated)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court 2000) (clarifies Teague's application to Strickland-based claims)
- Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (Supreme Court 1990) (considerations for whether a rule is new in retroactivity context)