Tennessee
How Chaidez v. United States applies in Tennessee: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
Tennessee adheres to the principle established in Chaidez, recognizing that ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on lack of awareness of immigration consequences are generally not retroactive for cases decided before Padilla v. Kentucky. This aligns with the general requirement that changes in law do not benefit defendants whose convictions were finalized prior to such changes.
In Tennessee, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are evaluated under the Strickland v. Washington framework, with the addition that claims related to immigration consequences must stem from post-Padilla developments.
The court held that post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance relating to Padilla's immigration advice could not be retroactively applied.
The court recognized the necessity for trial counsel to advise non-citizen clients regarding potential immigration consequences, aligning with federal precedent.
Affirmed that defendants must demonstrate actual prejudice in ineffective assistance claims, particularly regarding immigration advice.
Tennessee follows the federal standard for ineffective assistance claims as established under the Strickland test, but limits the applicability of Padilla's retroactive effects. This creates a distinction where state courts may be stricter on the timing of claims than some federal jurisdictions may allow.
Tennessee bar exam applicants should be familiar with the standards surrounding ineffective assistance of counsel, especially regarding immigration consequences, as such questions may arise in both criminal procedure and professional responsibility contexts.