By Rebecca Sharpless, Associate Clinical Professor, University of Miami School of Law
Two years ago in Padilla v. Kentucky the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires that defense attorneys advise their noncitizen clients about the immigration consequences of a plea. The Court recogniz
ed what, for decades, the defense and immigration bars have known: competent defense counsel must advise about immigration consequences of a plea. Today, in Chaidez v. USA, No. 11-820, the Court hears argument on the question of whether Padilla governs cases involving federal convictions that predate that decision.
Chaidez’s defense attorney failed to advise her that pleading guilty to the federal crime of mail fraud would be deemed an aggravated felony, triggering mandatory deportation. Before Padilla was decided, Chaidez petitioned for a writ of coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to set aside her conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After Padilla, Chaidez relied upon the decision to lend support to her argument that her attorney had breached a duty to advise her about deportation.