We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
CHAIDEZ V. UNITED STATES: BREAKING OLD GROUND.
- Authors
Price, Levi
- Abstract
In Padilla v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires defense counsel to advise his or her noncitizen criminal client about the impact of a guilty plea on the client's immigration status. When an attorney fails to provide his or her client that advisement, that client is deprived the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. In Chaidez v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Padilla announced a "new rule" and therefore relief based upon the holding of Padilla would only be available prospectively. Defendants whose convictions were final prior to Padilla, including Roselva Chaidez, could not bring claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla and were therefore denied justice. This Comment argues that the holding of Padilla was not a new rule. Specifically, changes to immigration law enacted in 1996, not Padilla, triggered the right of noncitizen criminal defendants to advisement about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Because of these changes, Padilla was a straightforward application of the existing Strickland v. Washington test for ineffective assistance of counsel, applied to new circumstances created by the 1996 changes in immigration law. Because Padilla did not announce a new rule, but only applied an existing rule to new circumstances, the holding should have applied retroactively, and Roselva Chaidez should have had her conviction vacated pursuant to Padilla.
- Subjects
UNITED States; CHAIDEZ v. United States (Supreme Court case); COLLATERAL consequences of guilty pleas; NONCITIZEN criminals; UNITED States. Constitution. 6th Amendment; PADILLA v. Kentucky; UNITED States. Supreme Court; IMMIGRATION status; RIGHT to counsel; LEGAL status of noncitizens
- Publication
Denver University Law Review, 2014, Vol 91, Issue 2, p533
- ISSN
0883-9409
- Publication type
Article