Precedent, Fairness, and Common Sense Dictate that Padilla v. Kentucky Should Apply Retroactively

Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 8, Issue 3 (Forthcoming)

34 Pages Posted: 19 Apr 2012 Last revised: 10 Aug 2012

See all articles by William Conlow

William Conlow

Rutgers University School of Law - Camden

Date Written: April 19, 2012

Abstract

In 2010, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Padilla v. Kentucky. The Padilla Court’s holding was that failure of counsel to advise a non-citizen criminal defendant about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. This article addresses whether Padilla applies to convictions that occurred before Padilla was decided, in March 2010.

First, this article provides background on relevant immigration law, Padilla v. Kentucky, and the Supreme Court’s retroactivity case law. Then, this article considers how lower courts have addressed the issue of retroactivity in the approximately twenty-seven months after the Padilla decision. This article also provides in-depth analysis of circuit courts and state supreme courts which have addressed the retroactivity issue. This article then critically analyzes the common arguments for and against applying Padilla retroactively. Finally, this article proposes that Padilla apply to all non-citizens who have been deported as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

On April 30, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the issue this article discusses. Although “confused and confusing,” the Supreme Court’s retroactivity case law supports a finding that Padilla applies retroactively. Similarly, fairness dictates that non-citizens who have received ineffective assistance of counsel, and been deported as a result, should be afforded a remedy. Common sense also dictates that Padilla applies retroactively. A plain reading of the Padilla case clearly imagines the retroactive effect of the Padilla holding. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s application of the Padilla rule to Jose Padilla was, in every sense, similar to those who would benefit from Padilla being retroactive. For these reasons, precedent, fairness and common sense dictate that Padilla should apply retroactively.

Keywords: Padilla v. Kentucky, Padilla, Retroactive, Retroactivity, Teague, Chaidez, Collateral Consequences, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Suggested Citation

Conlow, William, Precedent, Fairness, and Common Sense Dictate that Padilla v. Kentucky Should Apply Retroactively (April 19, 2012). Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 8, Issue 3 (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2042344 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2042344

William Conlow (Contact Author)

Rutgers University School of Law - Camden ( email )

Camden, NJ 08102
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
138
Abstract Views
1,218
rank
247,465
PlumX Metrics