State v. Ramirez
1 N.M. Ct. App. 769
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petitioner Martin Ramirez filed a writ of coram nobis in 2009 to vacate his 1997 convictions for possession of marijuana paraphernalia, etc.
- Paredez held counsel must inform noncitizen defendants of immigration consequences before pleading guilty; failure can be ineffective assistance if prejudicial.
- District court denied relief, ruling Paredez/Padilla not retroactive to collateral review.
- State did not contest facts; argued Paredez is not retroactive, and Paredez's rule is not retroactive.
- We address retroactivity and apply Paredez/Padilla to the case and remand for withdrawal of the plea if appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Paredez and Padilla retroactive to collateral review? | Ramirez | State | Yes; Paredez/Padilla apply retroactively. |
| Do Paredez/Padilla apply to the facts here and require relief? | Ramirez proffer shows counsel failed to advise on immigration consequences | State contends no retroactive relief | Counsel's failure prejudiced; relief warranted. |
| What remedy should follow retroactive application? | Withdraw plea allowed | Remand unnecessary? (not explicitly stated) | Remand for opportunity to withdraw plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paredez, 136 P.3d 799 (N.M. 2004) (duty to inform on immigration consequences; ineffective assistance if prejudice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must inform client whether plea carries deportation risk)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (old vs. new rules; Teague retroactivity framework)
- State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, 172 P.3d 144 (N.M. 2007) (Teague-based retroactivity approach in New Mexico)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (ineffective assistance framework; general rule of Strickland)