People v. Aristy

The defendant contends that his former counsel’s omission constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the rule set forth in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), and asks this Court to apply that rule retroactively to vacate his final judgment of conviction. However, the rule announced in Padilla has been held to apply only in those cases where the judgment of conviction was not yet final as of the date Padilla was decided (see Chaidez v United States, 568 US —, 133 S Ct 1103 [2013]), and this Court has expressly declined to afford the Padilla rule a more expansive retroactive…