391 P.3d 801
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Petitioner pleaded guilty in 1999 to delivery of a controlled substance; conviction became final long before Padilla v. Kentucky (2010).
- In 2011 petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla because counsel failed to advise him of clear immigration and naturalization consequences of the plea.
- State moved to dismiss as untimely under ORS 138.510(3) and argued Padilla is not retroactive to convictions final before it was decided.
- The post-conviction court dismissed; petitioner appealed arguing (1) Padilla could not reasonably have been anticipated (tolling the filing deadline) and (2) Padilla is retroactive (or Oregon law allows broader retroactivity than federal habeas retroactivity principles).
- Subsequent controlling authorities (Chaidez) held Padilla is not retroactive under Teague; Oregon Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court decisions applied federal retroactivity principles to Oregon post-conviction proceedings and rejected Padilla-based relief for convictions final before Padilla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla-based ineffective-assistance claim can be raised despite petition filed 12 years after conviction (timeliness exception) | Padilla announced an unforeseeable rule, so the two-year filing period exception applies | Petitioner could have anticipated Padilla; claim untimely | Court did not decide timeliness on appeal; affirmed on retroactivity grounds instead |
| Whether Padilla announced a rule that applies retroactively under Teague (federal retroactivity) | Padilla should apply retroactively to petitioner | Padilla is not retroactive under Teague | Chaidez controls: Padilla is not retroactive; petitioner’s federal-retroactivity argument fails |
| Whether Oregon courts must follow federal retroactivity principles in post-conviction cases (effect of Danforth) | Danforth allows states to adopt broader retroactivity; petitioner argued the Oregon statute precludes any retroactivity limitation | State relied on Oregon precedent applying federal retroactivity (Page, Miller, Teague v. Palmateer) | Court declined to overturn settled Oregon precedent; held retroactivity analysis applies and petitioner’s statutory argument fails |
| Whether Padilla supplies post-conviction relief for convictions final before Padilla | Petitioner urged Padilla-based relief under state post-conviction law | State argued Padilla does not provide relief for final convictions | Court affirmed dismissal: Padilla does not apply to convictions final before it; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise re: clear deportation consequences to avoid Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Padilla does not have retroactive effect under Teague)
- Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (states may apply new federal rules retroactively in state post-conviction proceedings)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (plurality) (framework for retroactivity of new rules in federal habeas)
- Teague v. Palmateer, 184 Or. App. 577 (2002) (Oregon Court of Appeals applying retroactivity analysis to state post-conviction law)
- Saldana-Ramirez v. State of Oregon, 255 Or. App. 602 (2013) (applied Chaidez to foreclose Padilla-based relief for convictions final before Padilla)
- Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or. 553 (2015) (Oregon Supreme Court addressed Danforth’s import for state retroactivity but resolved case on procedural grounds)