Student Project: Padilla v. Kentucky - Immigration Consequences of a Conviction: Primary Sources

On advice of counsel, Jose Padilla, a legal permanent resident, entered a guilty plea to a Kentucky drug trafficking offense - a deportable offense under federal law. Padilla claimed that under the Sixth Amendment, he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his defense counsel failed to advise him of the possible immigration consequences of his plea. In 2010, the Court held that counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. The Court reasoned that counsel's advice with respect to deportation is not categorically removed from the scope of the Sixth Amendment. Here, Padilla's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because counsel could have easily determined that a guilty plea would make Padilla eligible for deportation. However, the Court did not address whether Padilla was prejudiced by his counsel's deficiency and entitled to relief.

In 2003, Roselva Chaidez, a lawful permanent resident, was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on three counts of mail fraud. On the advice of counsel, Chaidez pleaded guilty and received a sentence of four years' probation. The government initiated removal proceedings in 2009 under a federal law that allows deportation of any alien who commits an aggravated felony. Chaidez's attorney never told her that pleading guilty could lead to her deportation. Chaidez filed for a writ of coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. While her motion was pending, the Court issued its decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that it is ineffective assistance of counsel when an attorney fails to advise a client that he or she may face deportation as a result of pleading guilty. The district court concluded that Padilla did not announce a new rule, so its holding applied to Chaidez's case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Padilla does announce a new rule and is not retroactively applicable in this case. Ultimately, in 2013, the Court held that Padilla created an entirely new rule and could not retroactively apply to already decided cases.