Teague New Rules Must Apply in Initial-Review Collateral Proceedings: The Teachings of Padilla, Chaidez and Martinez

32 Pages Posted: 15 Jun 2013 Last revised: 15 Aug 2013

See all articles by Rebecca A. Sharpless

Rebecca A. Sharpless

University of Miami - School of Law

Andrew Stanton

Office of the Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida

Date Written: August 8, 2013

Abstract

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to counsel their noncitizen clients about the immigration consequences of a plea. Padilla left undecided the critical question of whether its holding applies to other noncitizen defendants whose pleas were final before March 31, 2010, when the Court issued its opinion. The Court took up this question in Chaidez v. United States, a case raising this issue in the context of a writ of coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) involving a federal conviction. Assuming, but not deciding, that the retroactivity framework set out in Teague v. Lane applied to a federal conviction, the Court held that Padilla established a “new rule” and, therefore, was not available in postconviction proceedings involving pleas that became final before Padilla. In so ruling, the Court held for the first time that an application of the ineffective assistance of counsel standard in Strickland v. Washington resulted in a new rule.

In deciding that Padilla established a new rule, the Court expressly declined to consider Chaidez’s additional arguments that (1) Teague’s retroactivity framework does not apply when a federal, as opposed to a state, conviction is at issue; and (2) new rules about ineffective assistance of counsel should apply to postconviction proceedings in which ineffective assistance of counsel claims are raised for the first time.

This article focuses on Chaidez’s last argument regarding the application of certain types of new rules in postconviction proceedings, notwithstanding Teague. It argues for a “postconviction pipeline” in which new rules would apply. The pipeline includes any properly filed postconviction motion in state or federal court which involves an initial challenge to a criminal conviction.

Keywords: Teague, Padilla, Martinez, Chaidez, Griffith, postconviction, post-conviction, retroactivity, new rule, pipeline, ineffective assistance of counsel, deportation, immigration consequences, Strickland

Suggested Citation

Sharpless, Rebecca A. and Stanton, Andrew, Teague New Rules Must Apply in Initial-Review Collateral Proceedings: The Teachings of Padilla, Chaidez and Martinez (August 8, 2013). University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 67, p. 301, 2013, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2279245

Rebecca A. Sharpless (Contact Author)

University of Miami - School of Law ( email )

1311 Miller Drive
B400
Coral Gables, FL 33146
United States

Andrew Stanton

Office of the Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida ( email )

1320 NW 14th Street
Miami, FL 33125
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
103
Abstract Views
839
Rank
467,508
PlumX Metrics