United States v. Martinez
843 F. Supp. 2d 136
D. Mass.2012Background
- Indictment charged Martinez with illegal reentry as a deported alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; government contends removal on Oct. 12, 1999 and reentry on Mar. 28, 2011.
- Martinez challenges the deportation basis, arguing the underlying conviction was constitutionally defective and cannot support § 1326 prosecution.
- Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held lack of immigration consequences guidance may be ineffective assistance of counsel; retroactivity is at issue.
- Teague v. Lane framework governs retroactivity: retroactive only if old rule applied to new facts or a new rule that is substantive or watershed.
- District court adopts Chaidez reasoning and holds Padilla is not retroactive, thus cannot defeat the indictment here.
- Defendant contends Padilla invalidates the deportation basis, but court holds § 1326(d) requirements still apply and provide no exception for Padilla-based challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla retroactivity applies here | Martinez argues Padilla is retroactive for collateral review | The government argues Padilla is a new rule not retroactive | Padilla not retroactive under Teague |
| Whether Padilla can be used to collaterally attack the deportation underlying § 1326 | Padilla invalidates conviction supporting removal | § 1326(d) requires exhaustion, lack of review, or fundamental unfairness; Padilla cannot override | No exception; collateral attack not allowed via Padilla |
| Whether Martinez exhausted administrative remedies and satisfied § 1326(d) criteria | Claims exhausted elsewhere; seeks relief collaterally | No exhaustion or fair process shown; no collateral relief available in federal court | § 1326(d) not satisfied; collateral attack barred in federal court |
| Whether the government can proceed on the indictment despite a potentially defective underlying conviction | Conviction defective; removal invalidates predicate under § 1326 | Predicate remains valid absent successful collateral attack; 1326 controls | Indictment valid; no dismissal on Padilla retroactivity |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (ineffective assistance for failing to advise on deportation consequences; retroactivity disputed)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (retroactivity test for new constitutional rules)
- Chaidez v. United States, 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (Padilla announced a new rule; not retroactive)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (Padilla retroactivity analysis by Third Circuit)
- United States v. Chang Hong, 671 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2011) (Padilla as new rule; non-retroactive view)
- Adame-Orozco v. United States, 607 F.3d 647 (10th Cir. 2010) (1326(d) exhaustion and collateral considerations)
- Garcia v. Holder, 638 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2011) (cannot collaterally attack underlying conviction under Padilla)
- Luna v. United States, 436 F.3d 312 (1st Cir. 2006) ( § 1326(d) exhaustion and fairness requirements)