Legal Opinion
Chaidez v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 20, 2013No. 11-820PublishedCited by 806 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kagan
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356 (2010), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. We consider here whether that ruling applies retroactively, so that a person whose conviction became final before we decided Padilla can benefit from it. We conclude that, under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect.
*345I
Petitioner Roselva Chaidez hails from Mexico, but became a lawful permanent resident of the United States…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by806 opinions
- Welch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Sessions v. DimayaSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Gonzalez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Commonwealth, Aplt v. DescaresSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Kovacs v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
801 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.