crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

Archive

After regularly updating crimmigration.com from January 2009 until November 2022, I have stopped doing so. I hope you continue to benefit from the blog as an archive. For up-to-date information about my work, visit ccgarciahernandez.com. – César

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

The New México Court of Appeals, the state’s intermediate appellate court, held that Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), applies retroactively. State v. Ramirez, 278 P.3d 569, No. 2012-NMCA-057, slip op. (NM Ct. App. April 16, 2012) (Kennedy, Bustamante, and Fry, JJ.), cert. granted June 5, 2012. Judge Kennedy wrote the panel’s decision.

This case involves an attempt to vacate multiple 1997 convictions for misdemeanor possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and concealing identity on the basis that Ramirez’s attorney did not inform him of the immigration consequences of conviction. Ramirez, No. 2012-NMCA-057, slip op. at 2.

Normally I would engage in a detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning and holding. However, the New México Supreme Court already agreed to review this decision so it makes little sense to do that. Instead, I’ll just highlight a few key points.

First, a note about Ramirez’s retroactivity analysis. The court relied on the retroactivity analysis set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), to conclude that Padilla did not announce a new rule of criminal procedure. Ramirez, No. 2012-NMCA-057, slip op. at 6. In an unusual twist to the Teague analysis, though, the court turned to the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), for help. In Penry, the Court explained that “when a case is before the [Supreme] Court on collateral review, the Court ‘must determine, as a threshold matter, whether granting [the defendant] the relief he seeks would create a new rule.’ ‘Under Teague, new rules will not be applied or announced in cases on collateral review unless they fall into one of two exceptions [specified in Teague].’” Ramirez, No. 2012-NMCA-057, slip op. at 6 (quoting Penry, 492 U.S. at 313).

By implication, “if the Supreme Court intended its holding in Padilla to create a new rule, it would have to determine as a threshold issue whether the rule was old or new under Teague because the conviction in Padilla was on collateral review. The Court clearly did not engage in this analysis, and we must conclude that the Padilla court did not believe it was establishing a new rule.” Ramirez, No. 2012-NMCA-057, slip op. at 6. In other words, Padilla can’t have established a new rule, the New México court concludes, because the Supreme Court didn’t say that it did. This is a powerful statement that could lead other courts to follow suit.

Even more unusual—though less surprising—than the retroactivity analysis, however, was the court’s discussion of the state supreme court’s holding in State v. Paredez, 101 P.3d 799 (2004), that defense counsel must instruct defendants about the specific immigration consequences of conviction. Because attorneys in New México had long been required to provide such advice pursuant to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the court “conclude[d] that its application in this context [announced by Padilla] fails to contradict existing norms or forge new precedent in such a way that would require us to consider it a new rule.” Ramirez, No. 2012-NMCA-057, slip op. at 5. That is, Padilla is an old rule of criminal procedure in part because New México criminal defense attorneys had been required to provide specific advice about immigration consequences since Paredez.

We’ll see whether the state supreme court follows the Court of Appeals on this. Because the state uses the Teague retroactivity analysis, though, the critical question is likely to be what the U.S. Supreme Court decides about retroactivity in Chaidez v. United States, 644 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011), cert. granted 132 S. Ct. 2101 (U.S. Apr. 30, 2012).

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on September 20, 2012 on 9:00 am 10 Comments
Filed Under: habeas, New Mexico state court, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, right to counsel, state court

Comments

  1. http://www.paydayday.co.uk/ says

    January 12, 2013 at 11:57 pm

    http://www.paydayday.co.uk/

    crImmigration.com: NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

    Reply
  2. payday loans says

    April 29, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    payday loans

    This can be the worst write-up of all, I’ve read

    Reply
  3. payday loans no credit check says

    April 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    payday loans no credit check

    crImmigration.com: NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

    Reply
  4. louboutin outlet online says

    May 15, 2013 at 1:02 am

    louboutin outlet online

    It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment The Americans’ victory in Istanbul in 2010 was their first world title since 1994, and they won even though none of the ’08 gold medalists returned The AD has spoken to him

    Reply
  5. FakE oaklEys says

    July 8, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    FakE oaklEys

    Its good comical YouTube video, I always go to go to see YouTube website for comic videos, since there is much more data available.

    Reply
  6. コーチ 財布 says

    July 17, 2013 at 7:28 pm

    コーチ 財布

    crImmigration.com: NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

    Reply
  7. コーチ 財布 says

    July 18, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    コーチ 財布

    crImmigration.com: NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

    Reply
  8. グッチ 財布 says

    July 19, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    グッチ 財布

    crImmigration.com: NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

    Reply
  9. Replica Oakley Sunglasses says

    July 31, 2013 at 12:12 am

    Replica Oakley Sunglasses

    crImmigration.com: NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

    Reply
  10. http://partydressess.foodblog.com/ says

    March 5, 2014 at 5:48 am

    http://partydressess.foodblog.com/

    crImmigration.com: NM Ct App: Padilla is retroactive; NM Supreme Court grants cert

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Pelosi attacker reportedly Canadian overstayer
  • Biden marijuana pardon meets immigration law & fizzles
  • California private prison ban is illegal, 9th Circuit says
  • Citizenship is complicated
  • Supreme Court says Biden can end MPP
  • Uvalde massacre & immigration law aid

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.