23 N.Y.3d 777
NY2014Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty in 1996 to one count of third‑degree sale; plea involved no‑split offer with codefendant.
- Plea colloquy acknowledged rights waived and potential long sentence; defendant later sought to withdraw plea, then was sentenced in 2004.
- In 2010, defendant moved to vacate under CPL 440.10 alleging ineffective assistance for failing to advise about immigration consequences, relying on Padilla.
- Supreme Court deferred applying Padilla retroactively in federal collateral review per Chaidez (2013).
- New York Appellate Division adopted Teague/Eastman framework; questioned Padilla retroactivity as to pre‑1996 pleas, remanding for evidence.
- This Court ultimately held Padilla not retroactive in New York CPL 440.10 proceedings, reversing the Appellate Division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla is retroactive in state collateral review | People argues Padilla is not retroactive under Teague and Eastman. | Baret contends Padilla is retroactive under Pepper/Danforth and state norms. | Padilla not retroactive in state collateral review |
| Whether Padilla is a watershed rule under Teague and Eastman | Padilla should be watershed, affecting fundamental fairness. | Padilla is not watershed; not necessary to accuracy of conviction. | Padilla not watershed under Teague/Eastman |
| Whether Pepper three‑part test controls retroactivity of Padilla | Pepper applies; retroactivity favored given fairness and state interests. | Pepper is outdated; Teague/Danforth governs retroactivity here. | Pepper analysis does not retroactively apply Padilla |
| Whether New York may apply Padilla retroactively under state law independent of Chaidez | State interest in fairness supports retroactive Padilla relief. | Chaidez governs and forecloses retroactive state relief for Padilla. | State law Pepper/Teague framework controls; retroactivity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (holding Sixth Amendment duty to inform noncitizens of deportation risks; cautions on retroactivity)
- Chaidez v United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla not retroactive on federal collateral review under Teague)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (establishes retroactivity framework and watershed rule concept)
- Danforth v Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008) (teaches state courts may apply broader relief than Teague requires)
- People v Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397 (1995) (plea‑related immigration consequences not required under Ford; relied on pre‑Padilla precedent)
- Pepper v. People, 53 N.Y.2d 213 (1981) (three‑factor retroactivity test for new precedents)
- Eastman v. Cochran, 85 N.Y.2d 265 (1995) (Teague framework governs federal rule retroactivity; Eastman emphasizes watershed context)
- Chaidez dissent (Sotomayor), -- (2013) (dissent arguing Padilla applied as Strickland amendment, not new rule)
- Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (1987) (confrontation clause impact of co‑defendant's confession)