People v. Gomez, 295 Mich. App. 411

Defendant is a Mexican citizen and longtime U.S. resident who pled no contest to possession with intent to deliver marijuana and was sentenced to 120 days with probation.
Four years after sentencing, DHS notified him that the conviction made him subject to deportation.
Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held counsel must advise on immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
Defendant moved for relief from judgment claiming ineffective assistance under Padilla; trial court denied relief.
Court analyzes whether Padilla creates a new rule that is retroactive under Teague and Michigan law, and concludes Padilla applies prospectively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Padilla retroactive under federal Teague v. Lane analysis?	Padilla announced a new rule; retroactive application is warranted.	Padilla constitutes a new procedural rule not retroactively applicable.	Padilla is prospective only under federal Teague analysis.
Should Padilla be retroactively applied under Michigan law?	Michigan should apply Padilla retroactively.	Padilla should be applied prospectively under Michigan retroactivity standards.	Padilla applies prospectively under Michigan law.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (requires counsel to advise about immigration consequences; new rule; not retroactive under Teague)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new rules generally not retroactive to final judgments)
Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (2004) (finality; direct review lapse and certiorari period)
Maxson, 482 Mich. 385 (2008) (prospective-only rule for certain post-plea appeals; factors for retroactivity)
Sexton, 458 Mich. 43 (1998) (retroactivity factors for new rules in Michigan)
Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684 (2011) (federal circuit split on new-rule status; supports Padilla as new rule)
United States v. Hong, 671 F.3d 1147 (2011) (Padilla rule treated as new; discussion of retroactivity)