Sergio Perez v. State of Iowa
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 61
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Perez pled guilty in 2000 to a misdemeanor drug possession after initial felony charges were reduced by plea agreement.
- The plea resulted in a 30-day jail sentence with credit for time served; Perez did not appeal.
- Perez is not a United States citizen and later faced potential immigration consequences from the plea.
- In 2010, after Padilla v. Kentucky, Perez filed a postconviction relief petition asserting lack of immigration advisement and other procedural concerns.
- The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred under Iowa Code § 822.3; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted review to decide retroactivity of Padilla and timeliness under § 822.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Padilla retroactive to Perez’s postconviction relief claim? | Perez argues Padilla applies retroactively. | State contends Padilla is not retroactive (or retroactivity undecided pending Chaidez). | Teague framework applies; Padilla is not clearly retroactive at this time; retroactivity undecided. |
| If Padilla is retroactive, was Perez’s postconviction petition timely under § 822.3? | Padilla retroactivity would permit relief despite the three-year deadline. | Regardless, the petition was filed more than three years after final judgment. | Perez’s filing is time-barred unless Padilla is retroactive and applicable to toll the period. |
| Does Padilla represent a new rule or an application/clarification of Strickland for retroactivity purposes? | Padilla is an application/clarification of Strickland; should be retroactive. | Padilla is a new rule and not retroactive absent Chaidez determination. | The court acknowledges a split on this, and leaves Chaidez to decide retroactivity while applying § 822.3 accordingly. |
| Should Padilla be considered a watershed/ordered-liberty exception under Teague? | Padilla falls within watershed/ordered-liberty exception warranting retroactivity. | Padilla does not qualify as a watershed or substantive exception. | Padilla does not fit either Teague exception; retroactivity not established here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to advise about deportation risks; retroactivity unresolved)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (rules retroactivity and Teague exceptions for new constitutional rules)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ramirez, 636 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 2001) (Iowa precedent before Padilla on immigration advisement)
- Mott v. State, 407 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 1987) (Iowa rule on attorney obligation and collateral consequences pre-Padilla)
- Davis v. State, 443 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 1989) (upholds constitutionality of time-bar in § 822.3)
- Goosman v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539 (Iowa 2009) (standard of review for postconviction relief appeals)
- Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (Iowa postconviction review standards)