crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

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

7 Cir: Padilla & Chaidez don’t differentiate between no advice & bad advice; neither merits retroactive application of Sixth Amendment

The U.S. Court of Appeals held that the Sixth Amendment right to receive advice about the immigration consequences of a conviction does not apply prior to March 31, 2010 whether the criminal defense attorney affirmatively provided incorrect advice or simply failed to say anything about possible immigration consequences. Chavarria v. United States, No. 11-3549, slip op. (7th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) (Cudahy, Ripple, and Hamilton, JJ.). Judge Cudahy wrote the panel’s opinion.

This case involved an LPR who was convicted in 2009. After the Supreme Court announced in Padilla v. Kentucky 559 U.S. 356 (2010), that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel clause obligates criminal defense attorneys to inform their clients about possible adverse immigration consequences of conviction, Chavarria sought to vacate his conviction. Two years after it issued Padilla, the Supreme Court added that this Sixth Amendment obligation only applies to convictions entered after the date Padilla was announced—March 31, 2010. Chaidez v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1103 (2012).

In light of Padilla and Chaidez, Chavarria “now argues that Chaidez distinguished between providing no advice…and providing bad advice….” Chavarria , No. 11-3549, slip op. at 3. A defendant who received bad advice, Chavarria contends, can rely on ineffective assistance of counsel case law that existed prior to Padilla to attempt to vacate the conviction even if it was entered prior to March 31, 2010, but a defendant who received no advice can not. Id.

The Seventh Circuit quickly dismissed Chavarria’s argument. The distinction between no advice and bad advice “was not a relevant factor in Padilla,” the court concluded. Chavarria , No. 11-3549, slip op. at 4. Indeed, the court went on, “in its analysis, the Padilla majority was unconcerned with any distinction between affirmative misadvice and non-advice; because, until Padilla was decided, the Sixth Amendment did not apply to deportation matters at all.” Chavarria , No. 11-3549, slip op. at 5. Sixth Amendment case law, including the extensive body of law that existed around the effective assistance of counsel requirement, was “irrelevant” prior to the date Padilla was announced. Id. It could, therefore, not be of help to Chavarria.

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

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on February 20, 2014 on 9:00 am 8 Comments
Filed Under: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chaidez, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, right to counsel

Comments

  1. onwryq says

    February 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    onwryq

    crImmigration.com: 7 Cir: Padilla & Chaidez don’t differentiate between no advice & bad advice; neither merits retroactive application of Sixth Amendment

    Reply
  2. ixywlzeqc says

    February 27, 2014 at 9:38 am

    ixywlzeqc

    Agree with your post. Can you can keep update your post. I will back. thank you!

    Reply
  3. dhaixcekjr says

    February 27, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    dhaixcekjr

    Agree with your post. Can you can keep update your post. I wanna back. bye!

    Reply
  4. xexujgx says

    March 7, 2014 at 8:02 am

    xexujgx

    Agree with your mind. Can you can keep update your post. I want back. bye!

    Reply
  5. paul smith uk says

    March 20, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    paul smith uk

    crImmigration.com: 7 Cir: Padilla & Chaidez don’t differentiate between no advice & bad advice; neither merits retroactive application of Sixth Amendment

    Reply
  6. 5jx uk says

    March 22, 2014 at 10:35 am

    5jx uk

    crImmigration.com: 7 Cir: Padilla & Chaidez don’t differentiate between no advice & bad advice; neither merits retroactive application of Sixth Amendment

    Reply
  7. Cheap Louis Vuitton Bags UK says

    March 26, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Cheap Louis Vuitton Bags UK

    crImmigration.com: 7 Cir: Padilla & Chaidez don’t differentiate between no advice & bad advice; neither merits retroactive application of Sixth Amendment

    Reply
  8. belujafglmi says

    April 6, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    belujafglmi

    crImmigration.com: 7 Cir: Padilla & Chaidez don’t differentiate between no advice & bad advice; neither merits retroactive application of Sixth Amendment

    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

  • Biden-Harris immigration priorities signal big shift, raise many questions
  • Biden’s Migration Policy Options
  • Migrating to Prison, one year later
  • With Biden returning to White House, private prison stock falls
  • New York Review of Books
  • Justice Dept pushes Supreme Court to Imperil Families

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.