Miller v. State
11 A.3d 340
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2010Background
- Miller pleaded guilty on June 1, 1999, in Maryland for possessing 448 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute; no immigration consequences were advised.
- Judge Sothoron sentenced Miller to five years’ imprisonment with no parole; Miller did not appeal the sentence, which ended June 1, 2004.
- In 2008, Miller, a Belizean native and permanent resident, was detained by ICE at Miami; deportation proceedings began based on the 1999 conviction.
- Miller filed a coram nobis petition in June 2009 alleging lack of knowing, voluntary, intelligent plea due to unadvised immigration consequences and lack of direct appeal rights information.
- Lamasney denied the coram nobis petition in October 2009; Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) later changed the governing law on deportation advisement, but the case concerned Miller’s 1999 plea.
- Issue here is whether Padilla provides retroactive relief to a final conviction finalized before Padilla was decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla applies retroactively to Miller's 1999 plea | Padilla created a new rule that should apply to Miller's final conviction. | Padilla announces new law not retroactive to final convictions finalized before its decision. | Padilla does not apply retroactively to Miller’s 1999 plea. |
| Whether Miller could obtain relief on coram nobis despite finality and Teague retroactivity principles | New rule from Padilla should be applied to cases not on direct review. | Teague bars retroactive application to collateral review of final convictions. | Padilla is not retroactive to Miller; collateral-review relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (establishes new duty to advise on deportation affecting counsel’s Strickland analysis)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity in collateral review; new rules generally not retroactive)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (retroactivity of new rules to cases pending on direct review)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (applies Strickland to plea bargaining; relevance to finality and retroactivity)
- Yoswick v. State, 347 Md. 228 (1997) (Maryland doctrine distinguishing direct vs. collateral consequences of a plea)
- State v. Denisyuk, 191 Md.App. 408 (2010) (Maryland postconviction approach to collateral consequences and finality)
- Durbin v. State, 56 Md.App. 442 (1983) ( dicta on right to appeal as a non-jurisdictional issue in coram nobis context)
- Cuthrell v. Director of Patuxent, 475 F.2d 1364 (4th Cir. 1973) (direct vs. collateral consequence distinction in plea validity)
- Holmes v. State, 401 Md. 429 (2007) (Rule 4-242 and collateral consequences not mandating invalidation of plea)