United States v. Chang Hong
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Chang Hong seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. He asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Hong argues Padilla is a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, making his § 2255 motion timely. We construe Hong’s notice of appeal and opening brief as a request for a…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Chaidez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- State v. GaitanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
- State v. BrewsterNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2013
- Ex Parte Aftab Ali, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2012
- Sergio Perez v. State of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2012
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.