Virginia U.S. District Court Rules Padilla is Not Retroactive

Recently, the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia took up the issue of whether the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), applies retroactively.  The Court held that Padilla announced a "new" rule because the failure of counsel to advise the defendant of the risk of deportation would not have been unreasonable at the time the defendant's conviction became final.  Additionally, the Court held that none of the retroactivity exceptions identified in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), were applicable to Padilla.

Read the opinion here.


Federal courts across the country are grappling with this issue and reaching widely different conclusions:

Finding Padilla Retroactive:

United States v. Zhong Lin - Western District of Kentucky.
Read the opinion in its entirety here.

Martin v. United States - Central District of Illinois.
Read the opinion in its entirety here.

United States v. Chaidez - Northern District of Illinois.
Read the opinion in its entirety here.

Finding Padilla Not Retroactive:

United States v. Perez - District of Nebraska.
Read the opinion in its entirety here.

United States v. Shafeek - Eastern District of Michigan.
Read the opinion in its entirety here.