State v. Garcia
2013 SD 46
S.D.2013Background
- Pablo Garcia, a Mexican-born long-term U.S. resident, pleaded guilty in South Dakota (2004) to felony possession of 1–10 lbs. of marijuana and was sentenced to three years.
- A presentence report incorrectly listed Garcia as born in Texas; plea counsel apparently did not advise Garcia about immigration consequences.
- Garcia was later subject to federal removal proceedings, deported in 2006, reentered, and faced but did not ultimately sustain federal re‑entry charges.
- In 2011 Garcia moved to re-open and vacate his 2004 conviction under Padilla v. Kentucky, arguing counsel’s failure to advise on deportation risk was ineffective assistance and that he would not have pleaded guilty.
- The trial court denied relief, concluding Padilla announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively under Teague; Garcia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla is a "new rule" for retroactivity | Padilla is a Sixth Amendment rule (not new) and thus should apply retroactively | Padilla announced a new rule that should not apply to final convictions | Court held Padilla is a new rule and does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla |
| Whether Padilla should be applied retroactively to Garcia's 2004 plea | Garcia: Padilla requires retroactive relief because counsel was deficient and plea was uninformed | State: Applying Padilla retroactively would upset finality and courts relied on prior precedent | Court rejected retroactive application to Garcia, using South Dakota's Cowell factors and affirming denial of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (new constitutional rules of criminal procedure generally do not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires advising noncitizen defendants about deportation risk from guilty pleas)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (held Padilla announced a new rule that is not retroactive)
- Cowell v. Leapley, 458 N.W.2d 514 (S.D. 1990) (South Dakota framework for assessing retroactivity: purpose, reliance, effect on administration of justice)
- Nikolaev v. Weber, 705 N.W.2d 72 (S.D. 2005) (prior South Dakota precedent treating deportation as a collateral consequence, not ineffective assistance)