Miller v. State, 77 A.3d 1030

Background

Lincoln Miller, a Belize native and U.S. permanent resident since 1981, pled guilty in Maryland in 1999 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and received a five-year sentence; he did not file an application for leave to appeal or post-conviction relief.
In 2008 ICE initiated deportation proceedings after Miller returned from Belize; Miller filed a state coram nobis petition (Rule 15-1202) arguing his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent because counsel and the court failed to advise him of possible immigration consequences.
The trial court denied relief, citing the direct/collateral-consequences distinction; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed initially, concluding Padilla v. Kentucky did not apply retroactively to Miller’s 1999 conviction.
Maryland Court of Appeals (the state supreme court) had earlier in Denisyuk held Padilla should be applied retroactively to post-IIRIRA convictions; the U.S. Supreme Court later decided Chaidez, holding Padilla announces a new rule and is not retroactive under Teague.
The Court of Appeals here considered (1) waiver (failure to seek leave to appeal), (2) whether Padilla applies to Miller’s plea, and (3) whether any independent Maryland law basis existed to grant relief despite Chaidez; the majority affirmed denial of coram nobis relief, concluding no state-law remedy existed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Miller)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Padilla’s rule applies retroactively to Miller’s 1999 plea	Padilla should apply retroactively to pleas after IIRIRA (post-1997), so his plea can be vacated	Chaidez controls: Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive under Teague; Denisyuk cannot override Chaidez for federal constitutional relief	Court declined to provide federal Padilla relief here; Chaidez prevents retroactive federal rule application and no state-law basis was found to replace it
Whether Miller waived coram nobis review by not applying for leave to appeal	Miller: could not reasonably foresee Padilla in 1999, so waiver should be excused	State: failure to file leave to appeal creates a rebuttable presumption of waiver under Maryland law	Court exercised discretion to reach the merits because of unique circumstances but ultimately denied relief on other grounds
Whether counsel’s failure to advise of deportation rendered the plea involuntary or constitutionally ineffective	Miller: plea involuntary/ineffective because he was not told of deportation risk and counsel knew his noncitizen status	State: at the time (1999) prevailing law and Maryland precedent treated immigration consequences as collateral; no established state constitutional basis existed to vacate plea	Court held there was no viable state-law or federal remedy given Chaidez and Maryland precedent, so coram nobis relief was denied
Whether Maryland law (state constitution or rules) supplies an independent remedy despite Chaidez	Miller: Denisyuk and Rule 4-242(f) support state relief for post-IIRIRA pleas	State: no independent Maryland constitutional or precedential basis existed in 1999 to require relief	Court found no independent state-law basis that would obligate relief and affirmed denial of coram nobis petition

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise certain noncitizen defendants about deportation consequences)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (Padilla announced a new rule of criminal procedure and is not retroactive under Teague)
Denisyuk v. State, 30 A.3d 914 (Md. 2011) (Maryland held Padilla retroactive to post-IIRIRA guilty pleas)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (retroactivity framework for new constitutional rules)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (state courts may provide greater protection but cannot contravene U.S. Supreme Court’s federal rules)
Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (Teague governs federal habeas retroactivity; states retain discretion to provide broader relief)