Miller v. State, 77 A.3d 1030 (Md. 2013)
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recognized that it was not bound by Teague and declined to adopt Teague generally as the state’s test for retroactivity. Nevertheless, the court declared itself bound by the federal rule for Padilla retroactivity because no independent state basis could support a contrary holding. As the Maryland court had previously held that “‘[t]here is no distinction between the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights,’” the court could not articulate an independent state law basis to support ineffective assistance claims, leaving the state bound by the Supreme Court’s retroactivity determination. Moreover, the court articulated that by the time of Miller’s 1999 conviction, the Maryland Court of Appeals had adopted a rule requiring trial courts to advise defendants about possible immigration consequences, but failure to provide such warnings “did not render a guilty plea involuntary.” Finally, the court also expressed concerns that a contrary finding would lead to inequitable applications of law, as defendants convicted under state law would be able to bring collateral attacks against their convictions, while defendants convicted under federal law would not.