99 A.D.3d 408
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- To establish ineffective assistance, defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland.
- Padilla v. Kentucky held counsel must advise on immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
- Defendant moved to vacate, alleging no advice about deportation and other immigration consequences.
- Court concludes Padilla is retroactive; Teague framework governs retroactivity, with new vs old rule analysis.
- Prior to Padilla, deportation was a collateral consequence; misadvice could be ineffective under Strickland.
- Court notes plea occurred on December 23, 1996 and expresses no opinion on Padilla’s applicability to pre-1996 pleas; applying Padilla retroactively requires a hearing on advice given and prejudice under Hill v. Lockhart.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Padilla retroactive under Teague v. Lane? | Padilla should be retroactive. | Not explicitly presented in text; Teague analysis governs. | Yes; Padilla applied retroactively. |
| Does Padilla apply to deportation immigration advice under Strickland? | Padilla expands counsel’s duty to advise on immigration consequences. | Not explicitly stated; focus is on retroactivity and application of Strickland. | Padilla applies Strickland to deportation guidance. |
| What is the proper rule for applying Padilla to pre- or post-1996 pleas? | Padilla should apply as clarified rule. | Court reserves opinion on pre-1996 pleas. | Court applies Padilla retroactively but notes uncertainty for pre-1996 pleas. |
| What remedy is required after retroactive Padilla application? | A hearing to assess advised consequences and prejudice. | Not specified beyond hearing necessity. | Hearing required on advice given and whether prejudice existed under Hill v. Lockhart. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise on immigration consequences of a guilty plea)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new vs old rule; retroactivity framework)
- Eastman, 85 N.Y.2d 265 (1995) (well-established constitutional principles; retroactivity analysis)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (Padilla clarifies application to deportation advice; old rule)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffectiveness)