State v. Gaitan
17 A.3d 227
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Defendant pled guilty on June 27, 2005 to third-degree distribution of a controlled dangerous substance within 1000 feet of a school and received five years probation on October 7, 2005.
- Defendant did not direct appeal; in 2008 he filed a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- PCR judge denied relief; defendant appealed, challenging denial of an evidentiary hearing and alleged inadequate advice about deportation consequences.
- Nuñez-Valdéz (2009) held that direct/collateral methodology is inappropriate for deportation advice and that a mere yes in plea questions is not dispositive for effectiveness.
- Padilla (2010) held that counsel must inform noncitizen clients about deportation risks, creating a potential new standard for effectiveness in deportation matters.
- Appellate Division remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine counsel’s content and scope of deportation-advising, noting Nuñez-Valdéz and Padilla influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance regarding deportation advice | Gaitan | Gaitan | Entitled to evidentiary hearing |
| Whether reliance on the plea form Question 17 and plea colloquy was proper after Nuñez-Valdéz | State | Gaitan | Question 17 not determinative; remand for hearing needed |
| Whether Padilla and Nuñez-Valdéz should be applied retroactively to this PCR petition | State | Gaitan | Retroactivity acknowledged; apply Nuñez-Valdéz and Padilla principles to proceedings |
| What is the proper procedural path after remand given new standards from Padilla/Nuñez-Valdéz | State | Gaitan | Remand to determine counsel's advice in light of new standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen clients about deportation risks)
- State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (rejects direct/collateral dichotomy for deportation consequences; refines effectiveness standard)
- State v. Bellamy, 178 N.J. 127 (2003) (direct/collateral methodology rejected for certain consequences)
- State v. McIntyre, 200 N.J. 365 (2009) (remand context; impact of Nuñez-Valdéz on PCR effectiveness claims)
- State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (pipeline concept in retroactivity of appellate rulings)