Commonwealth v. Martinez, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 595

Defendant, a legal permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 1997 to distribution of a class B substance, making him deportable.
He was removed to the Dominican Republic in 2003 after the guilty plea.
In 2010 he reentered illegally and was arrested on an illegal reentry charge; he moved for a new trial on the 1997 drug charge.
Move relied on Padilla v. Kentucky, asserting ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to warn about immigration consequences.
Trial judge found deficient advice but denied relief for lack of prejudice; Clarke was decided after the motion, altering the prejudice standard.
Appeal argued the judge applied incorrect prejudice standard; remand for new hearing on the motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clarke retroactivity applies to prejudice analysis	Mills argued Clarke retroactively changes prejudice standard.	Defendant contends Clarke should apply to his case.	Remand for new hearing applying Clarke standard.
What constitutes prejudice in plea-based ineffective assistance post-Padilla/Clarke	Prejudice shows a reasonable probability of different outcome if advised.	Prejudice may be shown via possibility of a different plea or relief even without acquittal at trial.	Clarke clarifies prejudice includes possible different plea outcome and immigration considerations.
Whether evidence supports probability of a better plea under correct standard	Affidavits show a different plea could have been negotiated to reduce deportation risk.	No need to show available defense; focus is on plea outcome under immigration consequences.	Strong evidence favors credibility; may establish prejudice on remand.
Whether the defendant is entitled to relief on the motion for new trial	Plea advice failure likely affected decision to plead.	Prejudice exists under Clarke; trial court misapplied standard.	Order reversed; remanded for new hearing consistent with Clarke.
Proper handling of the reconsideration motion and timeliness	Reconsideration properly before court as a successive new-trial motion.	Time limits do not bar reconsideration due to nature of appeal.	Timeliness resolved in favor of defendant; reconsideration treated as proper part of appeal.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (expands immigration consequences in plea advice)
Clarke v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 30 (2011) (retroactivity of Padilla; clarifies prejudice standard)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (plea context prejudice requires probability of not pleading)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes prejudice as probability of different result)
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (standard for serious incompetence of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (1986) (review standard for 30(b) motions; abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Mahar, 442 Mass. 11 (2004) (definition of prejudice in Mass. context)