State v. Sosa
291 Ga. 734
Ga.2012Background
- Sosa pleaded guilty to child molestation on May 9, 2002 and was sentenced to ten years on sexual offender probation, finalizing after 30 days.
- At the time, Sosa was a lawful permanent resident; his wife and four children were U.S. citizens.
- In November 2010, Sosa was detained and deported following an ICE proceeding for aggravated felony status.
- Sosa filed a habeas petition on January 12, 2012, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky for not advising about deportation risks.
- The State moved to dismiss as untimely under OCGA § 9-14-42(c), and the habeas court vacated the conviction based on deficient performance.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding the petition untimely because Padilla-related rights were not retroactively applicable to collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla creates a retroactive, newly recognized right tolling the statute of limitations | Sosa; Padilla tolls time under retroactivity and newly recognized-right theories | State; Padilla is not retroactive under Teague and not a newly recognized right for collateral review | Padilla does not toll under these standards; petition barred by four-year limit |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires advising noncitizens of deportation risks)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity framework for new constitutional rules on collateral review)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007) (new rule retroactivity limited to substantive or watershed rules)
- Alford v. State, 287 Ga. 105 (2010) (retroactivity of new criminal procedural rule applied to collateral review)
- Smith v. State, 287 Ga. 391 (2010) (Padilla rule cited in Georgia context)
- Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684 (2011) (retrospective argument on Padilla's retroactivity under Teague)
- United States v. Amer, 681 F.3d 211 (2012) (Padilla retroactivity viewed as non-old-rule application)
- United States v. Chang Hong, 671 F.3d 1147 (2011) (Padilla retroactivity discussion in Tenth Circuit)
- Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (2011) (Padilla applicability under retroactivity debates)