ILNews

U.S. justices to rule on retroactivity of case involving guilty pleas by immigrants

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that stems from its 2010 decision Padilla v. Kentucky, in which the justices held that criminal defense attorneys are obligated under the Sixth Amendment to advise noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The justices will now rule on whether its decision is retroactive.

SCOTUS granted the petition for writ of certiorari Monday in Roselva Chaidez v. United States, No. 11-802, a case that comes from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Roselva Chaidez, a Mexican woman who became a lawful permanent resident in 1977, was indicted in 2003 for mail fraud. She pleaded guilty to two counts on the advice of her attorney, after which the government initiated removal proceedings to deport her. To attempt to avoid deportation, she filed a motion claiming her attorney was ineffective because she wouldn’t have pleaded guilty if she had known of the consequences. While her motion was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Padilla.

The Illinois federal judge held that Padilla applied to Chaidez’s case and vacated her convictions based on the belief that Padilla was retroactive. A split 7th Circuit reversed in August 2011, finding that Padilla announced a new rule so it was not retroactive. Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote in her dissent that the plain language of Padilla shows it anticipated retroactivity.

“We can rest assured that defense lawyers will now advise their clients prior to pleading guilty about the immigration consequences of such a plea, as the Court has clarified that such advice is required under the Sixth Amendment. But given today’s holding, this is of no consequence to Roselva Chaidez despite the fact that professional norms in place at the time of her plea placed the same duty on her counsel,” she wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • The Right Ruling
    I dont know WHY some States had been divided on the Padilla matter: if Padilla is retroactive or not... The matter is that there's nothing AFTER Padilla...But BEFORE...there's LOT OF ABUSING committed by the BIA and the INS. lot of broken families and bunch of legal residents deported. That's why The Supreme Court SHUOLD rule same rule that on Padilla. The violation of Constitutional rights have been committed for DECADES ! no now (2010) when Supreme first ruled on Padilla.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT