Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
By Jeffrey L. Fisher and Kendall Turner
The Retroactivity of Padilla After Chaidez v. United States
On March 31, 2010, the Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky that a criminal defendant receives ineffective assistance of counsel when her lawyer fails to advise her that a guilty plea may trigger deportation.1 Anyone whose conviction had not become final before that date was automatically entitled to the benefit of the Court’s holding.2 But what about people whose convictions became final before Padilla? On Feb. 20, 2013, the Court ruled in Chaidez v. United States that Padilla’s holding does not — at least as a general matter — apply retroactively to people with such convictions.3
But Chaidez’s holding is not as broad or absolute as it may sound. Three overlapping categories of defendants may still benefit from the retroactive application of Padilla: (1) defendants seeking relief in timely filed first postconviction proceedings; (2) defendants who received affirmative misadvice (as opposed to no advice) conc
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.