Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants

Chapter

Detailed Table of Contents

For more text, click "Next Page>"

Updates

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES " APPLICABILITY OF CHAIDEZ TO REVIEW OF FEDERAL CONVICTIONS
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach arguments by Chaidez that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance, because she did not adequately raise them in the lower courts: [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, the court declined to rule on Chaidez's new arguments); quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES " APPLICABILITY OF CHAIDEZ TO REVIEW OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIMS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BE RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach argument that new rules may be reached in post-conviction proceedings raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims because such claims cannot be brought on direct appeal because Chaidez did not raise this argument in the courts below).

POST CON RELIEF"GROUNDS"INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL"FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WRITTEN PLEA OFFER
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (Mar. 21. 2012) (defense counsel has the duty to communicate to the defendant formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused, and counsel was deficient in failing to communicate to defendant prosecutor's written plea offer before it expired).

POST CON RELIEF"GROUNDS"INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL"PLEA BARGAINING
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (Mar. 21, 2012) (defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, in rejecting an offer of a 51-to-85-month sentence, because counsel misadvised him that the prosecution would be unable to establish intent to murder, prejudice can be shown by establishing a reasonable probability the defendant and the trial court would have accepted the more favorable guilty plea absent counsels error). NOTE: The majority cites Padilla's floodgates discussion in defending the point that "Courts have recognized claims of this sort for over 30 years" without creating undo chaos. By "this sort," they mean Strickland claims about rejected pleas, which have a little bit more of a pedigree than non-advisal Padilla claims. This is another case with an application of Strickland that the dissent claims is novel. This language is strong confirmation that the Court understands Padilla's floodgates discussion as assuming its radioactivity as a mere application of Strickland and not a new rule. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner and Isaac Wheeler.

First Circuit

CONVICTION " STATUTORY DEFINITION " FINE
Vivieros v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. Jun. 25, 2012) (Massachusetts conviction of shoplifting, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 30A, constituted a conviction for immigration purposes, under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. (a)(48)(A), where the defendant pleaded guilty and received a fine of $250, which was later vacated, so the ultimate disposition was a guilty finding with no fines or costs, because a formal judgment of guilt had been entered and the fine was not vacated on a ground of legal invalidity). Note: This decision is mistaken. Its reasoning is as follows: The petitioner endeavors to alter this reality by insisting that the subsequent vacation of the $250 fine transmogrifies his case into one in which no sentence was ever imposed. This attempt to rewrite history cannot survive scrutiny. We previously have held that when an alien's conviction is vacated for reasons other than procedural or substantive error, he remains convicted for immigration purposes. See, e.g., Rumierz v. Gonzales, 456 F.3d 31, 39"40 (1st Cir.2006); Herrera"Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299, 305 (1st Cir.2000). Other courts uniformly have hewed to this rationale. See, e.g., Dung Phan v. Holder, 667 F.3d 448, 452"53 (4th Cir.2012); Poblete Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir.2010); Saleh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 17, 24"25 (2d Cir.2007); Cruz v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 452 F.3d 240, 245 (3d Cir .2006). It necessarily follows that the vacation of a fine for reasons unrelated to procedural or substantive error does not dissipate the underlying conviction for purposes of section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). The petitioner's case falls within this taxonomy. There is no indication in the record that his fine for shoplifting was vacated on account of either procedural or substantive error. To the contrary, the state court docket reflects that roughly five months after the fine was imposed, it was waived on recommendation of [the] Probation Dept. When the petitioner's counsel sought clarification regarding the final disposition, the state court wrote that the docket should reflect [a] guilty finding with no fines or costs. The implication of these docket entries is pellucid: the state court, exercising clemency, waived the petitioner's fine at the behest of his probation officer. There is not the slightest hint that the waiver came about because of some legal infirmity in the shoplifting proceedings. Accordingly, the shoplifting conviction remains a formal judgment of guilt, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), and endures for immigration law purposes. This is mistaken because it confuses the requirements for an effective vacatur of a conviction (a ground of legal invalidity), with an alteration in the sentence, which is effective for immigration purposes regardless of the reason for the sentence change. Compare Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), with Matter of Cota-Vargas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 849 (BIA 2005). The consistent rule, until now, has been that it is the final state sentence that is binding on the immigration authorities, regardless of any reason given for a change in the sentence.

Fifth Circuit

POST-CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " HABEAS " CUSTODY " DEPORTED
Merlan v. Holder, 667 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2011) (Noncitizen who has been deported to Mexico following a final order of removal is not "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2241).

Sixth Circuit

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF " FEDERAL " HABEAS CORPUS " STANDING " IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES AS LASTING COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES SUFFICIENT FOR STANDING
Pola v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 690312 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015) (petitioner has standing to pursue a motion under 28 USC 2255, because he continues to suffer from an injury in fact because we may presume collateral consequences, he was removed from the United States, and he is now inadmissible to reenter the United States).

Ninth Circuit

POST-CON " VACATUR AFTER DEPORTATION
United States v. Barrios-Siguenza, 747 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014) (We were assured at oral argument that Barrios will return for trial should the government choose to retry him and parole him into the country for that purpose. Cf. United States v. Leal"Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing the Attorney General's authority to parole aliens into the country to testify in criminal prosecutions (citing 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A))). Given the government's authority to permit Barrios to return for retrial, and counsel's assurances that Barrios would be willing to do so, this case is unlikely to languish for an indefinite period before the district court, should the government choose to retry Barrios.).

POST CON RELIEF " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " SENTENCE " FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE OR PRESENT MITIGATION
Stankewitz v. Wong, 698 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. Oct., __ 2012) (record shows substantial mitigating evidence that could have been presented with little or no risk of further aggravating the negative information the jury already knew of defendant).

Lower Courts of Tenth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ASCERTAIN DEFENDANTS IMMIGRATION STATUS
State v. Paredez, 136 N.M. 533, 540, 101 P.3d 799, 806 (2004) (defense counsel has an affirmative duty to determine a clients immigration status and provide specific advice on impact of a plea on immigration), cited by Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1484 (2010).

Other

POST CON RELIEF " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Christeson v. Roper, ___ U.S. ___, 2015 WL 232187 (Jan. 20, 2015) (per curiam) (a conflict of interest, as here, in which counsel's contentions were directly and concededly contrary to their client's interest and manifestly served their own professional and reputational interests, is grounds for substitution of counsel, since original counsel had missed the filing deadline for a habeas corpus petition, and therefore could not be expected to argue that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because counsel's interest in avoiding damage to his own reputation was at odds with his client's strongest argument, that is, that counsel abandoned him; the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying petitioner's second request for substitution of federally-appointed counsel under interests of justice standard); see Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1276, 182 L.Ed.2d 135 (2012). The court stated: The court's principal error was its failure to acknowledge Horwitz and Butts' conflict of interest. Tolling based on counsel's failure to satisfy AEDPA's statute of limitations is available only for serious instances of attorney misconduct. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 651-652, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010). Advancing such a claim would have required Horwitz and Butts to denigrate their own performance. Counsel cannot reasonably be expected to make such an argument, which threatens their professional reputation and livelihood. See Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers 125 (1998). Thus, as we observed in a similar context in Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. """", """", n. 8, 132 S.Ct. 912, 925, n. 8, 181 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012), a significant conflict of interest arises when an attorney's interest in avoiding damage to [his] own reputation is at odds with his client's strongest argument" i.e., that his attorneys had abandoned him. Indeed, to their credit, Horwitz and Butts acknowledged the nature of their conflict. Shortly before the first motion for substitution was filed, they provided an update to the Missouri Supreme Court on the status of Christeson's collateral proceedings. In it, they stated: Because counsel herein would be essential witnesses to factual questions indispensable to a Holland inquiry, there may be ethical and legal conflicts that would arise that would prohibit counsel from litigating issues that would support a Holland claim. Unwaivable ethical and legal conflicts prohibit undersigned counsel from litigating these issues in any way. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 485"486 [98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426] (1978). Conflict free counsel must be appointed to present the equitable tolling question in federal district court. App. to Pet. for Cert. 48a"49a. Yet, in their response to the District Court's order to address the substitution motion, Horwitz and Butts characterized the potential arguments in favor of equitable tolling as ludicrous, and asserted that they had a legal basis and rationale for the [erroneous] calculation of the filing date. Id., at 86a, 90a. While not every case in which a counseled habeas petitioner has missed AEDPA's statute of limitations will necessarily involve a conflict of interest, Horwitz and Butts' contentions here were directly and concededly contrary to their client's interest, and manifestly served their own professional and reputational interests. Clair makes clear that a conflict of this sort is grounds for substitution. Even the narrower standard we rejected in that case would have allowed for substitution where an attorney has a disabling conflict of interest. 565 U.S., at """", 132 S.Ct., at 1284. And that standard, we concluded, would gu[t] the specific substitution-of-counsel clause contained in 3559(e), which must contemplate the granting of such motions in circumstances beyond those where a petitioner effectively has no counsel at all"as is the case when counsel is conflicted. Id., at """", 132 S.Ct., at 1286. Indeed, we went so far as to say that given a capital defendant's statutory right to counsel, even in the absence of 3599(e) a district court would be compelled to appoint new counsel if the first lawyer developed a conflict. Ibid. (Id. at ___.) Cal Crim Def 20.39

ARTICLE " CAL POST CON " EFFECT OF CHAIDEZ V. UNITED STATES ON CALIFORNIA LAW CONCERNING PADILLA CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO IMMIGRATION ADVICE
In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the Supreme Court held that Padilla does not apply to convictions that were already final on March 31, 2010 under the retroactivity analysis in Teague. Padilla did not much change on the California law on this subject. In California, in 1987, the First District Court of Appeals held it is ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to investigate the federal immigration consequences of a disposition and to fail to advise a foreign national defendant of them before plea. People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987). In 1989, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held it to be ineffective assistance to fail to request a non-deportable sentence. People v. Barocio, 216 Cal.App.3d 99 (1989). Both of these decisions have been binding on trial courts statewide since their decision. Therefore, criminal defense counsel and lower state courts were bound to follow those opinions. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456) (Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction.) The California Supreme Court then held it to be ineffective assistance of counsel to give affirmative misadvice to a noncitizen concerning the immigration consequences of a plea if prejudice is shown. In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230, 105 Cal.Rptr. 2d 431 (2001). The Sixth District Court of Appeals held it to be ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to seek a non-deportable plea to a greater offense. People v. Bautista, 115 Cal.App.4th 229 (2004). The holding of Padilla, therefore, does not significantly change California law concerning effective assistance to noncitizen defendants in advising them of, and helping them avoid, disastrous immigration consequences of criminal convictions. Padillas major effect on California law is that the California Supreme Court must now recognize that a failure to advise a defendant can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, an issue on which it was as yet unpersuaded in 2001 when it decided Resendiz. This unpersuaded statement, however, was nothing more than dictum, since the failure to advise claim was not before the California Supreme Court in Resendiz. The Court in Resendiz did not overrule or even cite the Soriano decision, that held since 1987 that failure to advise was ineffective. In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (Mar. 31, 2010), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant affirmatively to provide accurate advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the Supreme Court held that under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect. Therefore, defendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla [March 31, 2010] therefore cannot benefit from its holding. (Chaidez, supra, at *10.) Defendants with convictions that were still on appeal, or as to which the time for filing a notice of appeal had not yet expired, may still take advantage of the new rule of Padilla. Seven justices joined in the judgment, with Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsberg, dissenting. There are several important limitations to the Chaidez decision. Padilla decided two distinct claims: First, it held that counsels affirmative misadvice concerning the actual immigration consequences of a plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Second, it held that counsels failure affirmatively to advise the client of those consequences also constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. In Chaidez, only a failure to advise claim was raised, and the Supreme Courts holding in Chaidez therefore only addressed failure to advise claims. The Supreme Court explicitly distinguished affirmative misadvice claims as not subject to its retroactivity holding: True enough, three federal circuits (and a handful of state courts) held before Padilla that misstatements about deportation could support an ineffective assistance claim. But those decisions reasoned only that a lawyer may not affirmatively misrepresent his expertise or otherwise actively mislead his client on any important matter, however related to a criminal prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1015"1017 (C.A.9 2005). They co-existed happily with precedent, from the same jurisdictions (and almost all others), holding that deportation is not so unique as to warrant an exception to the general rule that a defendant need not be advised of the [collateral] consequences of a guilty plea. United States v. Campbell, 778 F.2d 764, 769 (C.A.11 1985).FN14 So at most, Chaidez has shown that a minority of courts recognized a separate rule for material misrepresentations, regardless whether they concerned deportation or another collateral matter. That limited rule does not apply to Chaidez's case. And because it lived in harmony with the exclusion of claims like hers from the Sixth Amendment, it does not establish what she needs to"that all reasonable judges, prior to Padilla, thought they were living in a Padilla-like world. (Id. at ___ [emphasis supplied].) Therefore, the Chaidez holding on retroactivity of Padilla does not apply to the separate rule for material misrepresentations as to federal immigration consequences of a plea, that pre-existed Padilla and lived in harmony with the exclusion of claims like hers [failure to advise claims] from the Sixth Amendment . . . . (Ibid.) The affirmative misrepresentation rule, that material misrepresentations constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, falls within the normal run of Strickland claims, and there is no reason to believe it was a new rule. This rule by 2001 was considered a clear state and federal consensus on federal constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel. One of those state courts, though not mentioned in Chaidez, that earlier recognized failure to advise clients was the California Supreme Court. In 2001, ten years before Padilla was decided, that court held that the collateral consequences doctrine did not categorically bar a claim that affirmative misadvice concerning the adverse immigration consequences of a plea constituted reversible ineffective assistance of counsel if prejudice was shown. In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230, 248, 105 Cal.Rptr. 2d 431 (2001) (For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that neither the existence of section 1016.5 nor the collateral nature of immigration consequences constitutes a per se bar to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's misadvice about the adverse immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Therefore, we may not in this case avoid the circumstance-specific reasonableness inquiry required by Strickland. ( Roe v. Flores"Ortega, supra, 528 U.S. at p. 478 [120 S.Ct. at p. 1035]; see also Hill, supra, 474 U.S. at pp. 57"58, 106 S.Ct. 366; U.S. v. Mora"Gomez, supra, 875 F.Supp. at p. 1213.) Accordingly, we shall proceed to apply Strickland 's familiar reasonableness standard to the circumstances of the instant case. (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052.)). In reaching that conclusion, the court reviewed the nationwide state of the law " state and federal -- concerning affirmative misadvice claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: Even among the federal and other courts cited by the Attorney General, the clear consensus is that an affirmative misstatement regarding deportation may constitute ineffective assistance. (U.S. v. Mora-Gomez, supra, 875 F.Supp. at p. 1212.) FN14 FN14. See also People v. Huynh (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1083, 281 Cal.Rptr. 785; Ostrander v. Green (4th Cir.1995) 46 F.3d 347, 355, overruled on another point in O'Dell v. Netherland (4th Cir.1996) 95 F.3d 1214; U.S. v. Del Rosario, supra, 902 F.2d at page 59 and footnote 2; U.S. v. George (7th Cir.1989) 869 F.2d 333, 337; United States v. Campbell (11th Cir.1985) 778 F.2d 764, 768"769; Downs"Morgan v. United States (11th Cir.1985) 765 F.2d 1534, 1541; United States v. Santelises (2d Cir.1975) 509 F.2d 703, 703"704; United States v. Briscoe (D.C.Cir.1970) 432 F.2d 1351, 1353"1354; U.S. v. Corona-Maldonado (D.Kan.1999) 46 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1173; United States v. Nagaro-Garbin (E.D.Mich.1987) 653 F.Supp. 586, 590; People v. Pozo, supra, 746 P.2d at page 527, footnote 5; People v. Ford (1995) 86 N.Y.2d 397, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265, 268"269; People v. Correa (1985) 108 Ill.2d 541, 92 Ill.Dec. 496, 485 N.E.2d 307, 310"311. There are a very few cases suggesting an affirmative misrepresentation is constitutionally irremediable (see, e.g., United States v. Sambro (D.C.Cir.1971) 454 F.2d 918, 921 922; United States v. Parrino (2d Cir.1954) 212 F.2d 919, 921"922), but, as one court has remarked, we properly may regard those cases as aberrations (Strader v. Garrison (4th Cir.1979) 611 F.2d 61, 64). (Id. at 251, 105 Cal.Rptr. 2d 446.) See also, e.g., United States v. Couto, 311 F.3d 179, 187-88 (2d Cir. 2002); Commonwealth v. Tahmas, Nos. 105254, 105255, 2005 WL 2249587, at *3 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 26, 2005); Rollins v. State, 591 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. 2004). Further research will disclose additional favorable affirmative misadvice decisions handed down after Resendiz in 2001, but prior to Padilla in 2010. This national clear consensus was that affirmative misadvice concerning the adverse immigration consequences of a plea constitutes deficient performance of counsel. The simplest conclusion, therefore, is that at least 10 years before Padilla was decided, prejudicial affirmative misadvice was a claim that could be used to invalidate a state or federal conviction as a matter of federal constitutional law. At a minimum, the law in the specific jurisdictions cited above, and any others in which the law was the same, could be used to invalidate convictions that became final after the date of decision in each jurisdiction holding that affirmative misadvice constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Failure to advise claims, in addition, remain alive prior to Padilla in those jurisdictions with decisions to that effect. These jurisdictions include at least California, Colorado, and New Mexico, which had already held that failure to advise claims constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523, 527"529 (Colo.1987); State v. Paredez, 2004"NMSC"036, 17"19, 136 N.M. 533, 539, 101 P.3d 799, 805; People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987). The fact that Padilla does not apply retroactively does not invalidate prior state decisions holding to the contrary. The Supreme Court in Chaidez was wrong to omit California from the (short) list of jurisdictions that adopted the failure to advise rule prior to Padilla. California since 1987 has held that failure to advise constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Soriano (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1470, 240 Cal.Rptr. 328. This California 1987 decision was based on both the state and federal constitutions. People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470, 1478-1479 (1987) (Both our federal and state Constitutions give a criminal defendant the right to assistance of counsel. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, 15.) The right to counsel entitles a defendant to effective counsel. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052]; People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d 412, 423-424.) The standard against which counsel's effectiveness will be measured is that of reasonably *1479 competent' attorney who acts as a diligent conscientious advocate. ( United States v. DeCoster (D.C.Cir 1973) 487 F.2d 1197, 1202 [487 F.2d 1197]; accord People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 423.)). The federal Constitution provides minimum guarantees of fundamental constitutional rights, but certainly does not prohibit the State of California from granting greater protections in its constitution. States must enforce minimum federal constitutional standards, but are free to adopt additional protections. (Reynolds v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 834, 842, 117 Cal.Rptr. 437; Cal. Const., Art. I, 24 (declaring that [r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.)) Moreover, state courts are charged with enforcing federal constitutional guarantees, and nothing in Padilla or Chaidez holds that Soriano was in error. It merely reached the correct conclusion earlier than the federal courts. As Rebecca Sharpless pointed out, the court in declined to address Chaidezs two additional arguments: 1) Teagues analysis does not apply because she, unlike Teague, had a federal rather than a state conviction; and 2) new rules apply in post-conviction proceedings raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims because such claims cannot be brought on direct appeal. The Court thus applied Teague for the first in a federal case, but it did so without ruling that Teague should apply, leaving the question open for future litigation. Moreover, both state and federal litigants can still take up Chaidezs argument that new rules apply in ineffective assistance of counsel cases that must be brought on post-conviction rather than direct appeal. Rebecca Sharpless, Chaidez V. U.S.: Assuming Teague Applies, Padilla Announced A New Rule (2/22/13), http://crimmigration.com/2013/02/22/chaidez-v-us--assuming-teague-applies-padilla-announced--a-new-rule.aspx. Since these two arguments were not properly preserved and presented in Chaidez, the Supreme Court did not decide them. Therefore, counsel are free to argue: (1) Teague does not apply in state proceedings, unless the state has independently chosen to follow the Teague rule. (2) New rules apply in post-conviction proceedings raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims because such claims cannot be brought on direct appeal. Chaidez does not apply to review of state claims under state authority. It held merely that Padilla does not apply to cases already final on March 31, 2010, when it was decided. Favorable state authority decided prior to Padilla holding defense counsels failure to advise, or affirmative misadvice, concerning adverse immigration consequences of a plea such as that in California, remains intact. This is particularly important in California, where state authority condemned failure to advise as ineffective assistance of counsel has existed since 1987. Following the rule set forth in People v. Soriano, a California Court of Appeals panel in 1989 made explicit what was only implicit in Soriano: the duty to advise about immigration consequences also includes the duty to defend against those consequences. People v. Barocio, (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 99 (failure to file judicial recommendation against deportation or seek 364 day sentence is ineffective assistance of counsel). This was also the holding in People v. Bautista (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 229 (counsel correctly told the defendant that he would be deported for possession of sale conviction, but failure to attempt to plead up to offer to sell or transportation may be ineffective assistance of counsel). This prior authority does not depend on Padilla, and so remains useful even though Padilla itself does not apply to cases already final when it was decided.

PRACTICE ADVISORY " POST-CONVICTION RELIEF " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " IAC DURING PLEA NEGOTIATIONS " DISTINGUISHING LOCKHART V. FRETWELL
In 1993, the Supreme Court stated that the only errors of counsel that can be considered as claims of ineffective assistance are those that deprive the defendant of a substantive or procedural right to which the law entitles him in his defense. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 372 (1993). While pertinent in Lockhart, in which counsels error deprived the defendant only of a benefit later declared illegal, Justice OConnor was at pains to point out that this language, as well as the courts decision in that case, flowed from the highly unusual fact that the only benefit of which the defendant was there deprived was one which was forbidden under the correct legal analysis. Lockhart did not alter in any way the normal analysis of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The normal Strickland test provides sufficient guidance for resolving virtually all ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391 (2000). The Virginia Supreme Court erred in holding that our decision in Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993), modified or in some way supplanted the rule set down in Strickland. Ibid. Williams clarified that the Courts earlier decision in Lockhart dealt with the rare situation where the likelihood of a different outcome attributable to an incorrect interpretation of the law should be regarded as a potential windfall to the defendant rather than the legitimate prejudice contemplated by our opinion in Strickland. Williams, 529 U.S. at 392; see also United States v. Glover, 531 U.S. 198, 203 (2001) ([O]ur holding in Lockhart does not supplant the Strickland analysis.); Jenny Roberts, Proving Prejudice, Post-Padilla, 54 HOWARD L. REV. 693, 699 n.23 (2011). Lockhart was an exception to the normal Strickland prejudice test, applicable only when the benefit of which the defendant was deprived by counsels error was in fact prohibited by a later change in the law. It would be an unfair error of the gravest magnitude to glorify it into a rule that eliminates any protection against ineffective assistance of counsel except in those rare cases in which the defendant can show a reasonable probability he or she would have taken the case to trial.

SHAUNA M. STRICKLAND ET AL., STATE COURT CASELOAD STATISTICS: AN ANALYSIS OF 2008 STATE COURT CASELOADS
45 tbl.1 (2010) (stating that there were more than 21 million criminal cases filed in state trial courts in 2008), available at http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/ 2008_files/EWSC_2008_Online_Version.pdf