State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537

Poblete was convicted by plea of attempted possession of a narcotic drug for sale; imposition of sentence suspended and probation for four years with 60 days in jail as a probation condition.
Probation ended early in September 2008.
As a noncitizen, Poblete later learned from an immigration attorney that the conviction could lead to deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227.
In December 2010, Poblete moved for post-conviction relief under Rule 32, asserting his delayed notice was due to ineffective assistance of prior counsel and invoking Padilla v. Kentucky as a significant change in law.
The trial court denied relief, concluding Padilla was not retroactive and that Poblete had not shown fault or a significant change under Rule 32.1(f) and (g).
On review, the Arizona Court of Appeals held Padilla created a significant change in the law but concluded Padilla does not apply retroactively under Teague to Poblete’s final conviction, denying relief but granting review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Poblete is entitled to relief as to timeliness under Rule 32.1(f).	Poblete asserts lack of fault due to counsel’s failure to inform him of immigration consequences.	State argues Poblete was advised of potential immigration consequences and the delay was not due to lack of fault.	No relief under Rule 32.1(f).
Whether Padilla constitutes a significant change in the law under Rule 32.1(g).	Padilla is a significant change that applies to his case.	Padilla is not applicable retroactively under Teague; it does not overturn final convictions.	Padilla is a significant change but not retroactive under Teague for Poblete.
Whether Padilla applies retroactively to cases final before Padilla was issued.	Padilla should apply due to significant change.	Retroactivity limited by Teague’s exceptions.	Padilla does not apply retroactively; no relief on that basis.

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (Ariz. App. 2007) (standard of review for post-conviction relief abuse of discretion)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010 U.S.) (counsel's duty to advise on immigration consequences of guilty plea; significant change in law)
State v. Towery, 64 P.3d 828 (Ariz. 2003) (finality of conviction; Teague retroactivity framework)
State v. Febles, 115 P.3d 629 (Ariz. App. 2005) (Teague watershed exception; retroactivity analysis)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new rules and retroactivity framework for state convictions)
Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2004) ( watershed rule concept in Teague context)