Master The Supreme Court held that Padilla v. Kentucky announced a new rule and therefore does not apply retroactively on collateral review to convictions that became final before Padilla. with this comprehensive case brief.
Chaidez v. United States is a cornerstone case at the intersection of ineffective assistance of counsel doctrine and retroactivity on collateral review. The Court addressed whether its 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky—which required defense counsel to advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of guilty pleas—applies retroactively to defendants whose convictions were already final when Padilla was decided. The answer determined whether thousands of noncitizen defendants could reopen their long-final convictions based on counsel's failure to advise about immigration consequences.
By holding that Padilla announced a "new rule" under Teague v. Lane and therefore does not apply retroactively on collateral review, the Court emphasized the finality interests that animate federal post-conviction law. Chaidez is essential reading for understanding how Teague retroactivity constrains the reach of newly announced constitutional rules, and it illustrates how the Sixth Amendment's performance standards under Strickland intersect with the unique posture of collateral attacks such as habeas and coram nobis.
568 U.S. 342 (2013)
Roselva Chaidez, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in federal court in 2003 to two counts of mail fraud arising out of an insurance fraud scheme. She received a sentence that included probation and an order to pay restitution exceeding $10,000. Under the immigration laws, a fraud offense with a loss exceeding $10,000 qualifies as an aggravated felony, making a noncitizen removable. Years later, after immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings, Chaidez sought to vacate her conviction by petitioning for a writ of coram nobis. She alleged that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise her of, and by downplaying, the deportation consequences of her guilty plea—an argument that relied on the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), which held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise a client about the risk of deportation from a guilty plea. The district court granted relief in light of Padilla, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that Padilla announced a "new rule" and therefore could not apply retroactively to Chaidez's already-final conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Does Padilla v. Kentucky apply retroactively on collateral review to defendants whose convictions became final before Padilla was decided?
Under Teague v. Lane, a constitutional rule announced after a defendant's conviction becomes final does not apply retroactively on collateral review if it is a "new rule," meaning it was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the conviction became final. Two exceptions exist: (1) substantive rules that place certain conduct or persons beyond the government's power to punish or narrow the scope of a criminal statute, and (2) watershed rules of criminal procedure that implicate the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. New procedural rules generally are not retroactive.
No. Padilla announced a new rule and therefore does not apply retroactively on collateral review to convictions that were final before Padilla. The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was affirmed.
The Court applied Teague's retroactivity framework. A rule is "new" if it was not dictated by precedent when the defendant's conviction became final. Although Strickland v. Washington supplied the general ineffective assistance standard, the Court concluded that Padilla's requirement that counsel advise noncitizen clients about deportation consequences was not dictated by Strickland and thus constituted a new rule. Prior to Padilla, the vast majority of lower courts treated deportation as a "collateral" consequence of a conviction and therefore held that the Sixth Amendment imposed no duty on counsel to advise about immigration consequences. Padilla expressly rejected that approach, reasoning that deportation is often a severe and intimately related consequence of a plea. That move—abandoning the collateral-direct consequence line in this context and imposing an advice obligation—demonstrated that Padilla broke new ground. Because Padilla announced a new procedural rule, Teague barred its retroactive application on collateral review. Neither exception to Teague applied: Padilla is not a substantive rule, and the Court has repeatedly emphasized the narrowness of the "watershed" exception, which Padilla does not meet. The Court also declined to recast Chaidez's claim as one based solely on affirmative misadvice that some lower courts recognized before Padilla; her claim depended on Padilla's broader holding that the Sixth Amendment affirmatively requires advice regarding deportation risk. Accordingly, Chaidez could not rely on Padilla to reopen her final conviction.
Chaidez is a pivotal case for understanding retroactivity. It teaches that even transformative Sixth Amendment decisions like Padilla will not reopen final convictions on collateral review unless they were dictated by prior precedent or fit within Teague's narrow exceptions. For law students, Chaidez reinforces how Teague cabins the reach of new constitutional rules and how Strickland's flexible performance standard does not automatically render later doctrinal refinements retroactive. Practically, Chaidez draws a temporal line for Padilla claims: defendants whose convictions became final after Padilla benefit from its advice requirement; those with earlier final convictions generally do not, although state courts may adopt broader retroactivity as a matter of state law.
Teague v. Lane limits the retroactive application of new constitutional rules on collateral review (like habeas or coram nobis). A rule is new if not dictated by existing precedent when the conviction became final. New procedural rules are generally nonretroactive unless they are watershed. In Chaidez, the Court found Padilla's advice requirement to be a new procedural rule, so it could not be applied to reopen Chaidez's final conviction.
Not categorically. Padilla applies to cases that were still on direct review when Padilla was decided and to all cases going forward. Chaidez holds only that Padilla does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review to convictions already final before Padilla. Additionally, states can, as a matter of state law, choose to apply Padilla more broadly in state collateral proceedings.
Before Padilla, most courts held that deportation was a collateral consequence and thus outside the Sixth Amendment's required plea advice. Padilla rejected that categorical view, requiring counsel to advise about deportation risk. In Chaidez, the Court pointed to that widespread pre-Padilla consensus as evidence that Padilla was not dictated by precedent and therefore announced a new rule.
Some pre-Padilla lower courts recognized ineffective-assistance claims where counsel affirmatively gave incorrect immigration advice. However, the Supreme Court in Chaidez concluded that Chaidez's own claim depended on Padilla's broader duty-to-advise holding, making her claim nonretroactive. Chaidez does not categorically foreclose all pre-Padilla misadvice claims, but relief depends on the particular jurisdiction's pre-Padilla law and whether the claim truly rests on affirmative misadvice rather than the duty to advise recognized in Padilla.
Chaidez had completed her sentence, so she was no longer 'in custody' as required for federal habeas or § 2255 relief. Coram nobis is an extraordinary common-law remedy available to challenge federal convictions with continuing consequences when no other remedy exists. Even in coram nobis, however, Teague's retroactivity principles apply, which barred Chaidez's reliance on Padilla.
Chaidez v. United States draws a firm retroactivity boundary around Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that Padilla's Sixth Amendment duty to advise about deportation consequences is a new procedural rule that cannot be used to reopen convictions that were final before Padilla. The decision underscores the deference federal post-conviction law gives to finality and the narrowness of Teague's exceptions.
For practitioners and students, Chaidez clarifies the temporal reach of Padilla and illustrates how courts determine whether a decision is dictated by precedent. It remains a key case for evaluating ineffective assistance claims involving immigration consequences and for understanding the limits of collateral review under Teague.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →