Chaidez v. United States
133 S. Ct. 1103
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Chaidez (Mexican-born, LPR since 1977) pleads guilty to two counts of mail fraud; conviction final in 2004.
- Offenses charged are “aggravated felonies” under federal immigration law, triggering mandatory removal.
- Chaidez alleges her counsel failed to advise of immigration consequences; she was uninformed at plea.
- Removal proceedings began in 2009 after citizenship application revealed prior conviction.
- Chaidez files coram nobis petition arguing ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment.
- Supreme Court holds Padilla announced a new Teague nonretroactive rule and does not apply to Chaidez’s final-conviction claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla announced a retroactive new rule. | Chaidez: Padilla applies retroactively under Teague. | Government: Padilla is a new rule not retroactive. | Padilla announced a new rule; not retroactive. |
| Whether Padilla could be applied to Chaidez under Strickland if retroactive. | Chaidez: Strickland applies; Padilla should apply. | Chaidez: Teague bars retroactive relief. | Retroactivity barred; Padilla not applied to Chaidez. |
| Whether lower-court practice before Padilla reflected a belief that deportation advice was outside Sixth Amendment scope. | Chaidez: pre-Padilla cases showed evolving norms making Padilla novel. | Government: pre-Padilla authorities uniformly rejected such advice as collateral. | Pre-Padilla practice considered; Padilla nonetheless announced a new rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (holding that counsel must advise on deportation risks; new rule for Teague retroactivity)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity depends on whether rule is novel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (plea counsel standard; prejudice inquiry may be avoided in certain collateral questions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficiency and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (availability of discretionary relief impacts plea decisions; informs professional norms)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (held Strickland applies to other plea-stage misconduct context)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510 (U.S. 2003) ( Strickland applied to mitigation investigation in capital cases)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (affirmative failure in plea offers—Strickland applies)