Padilla v. Kentucky
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Eight other opinions declined to extend its immigration-advice rule to different consequences or to require a new state postjudgment remedy. The remaining opinions applied Padilla, reported its displacement of older collateral-consequence law or Chaidez's act, or directed nearby treatment language elsewhere.
4,972 later cases cite Padilla v. Kentucky; 307 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Padilla v. Kentucky?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Court held Padilla announced a new rule and does not apply retroactively to convictions already final when Padilla was decided.
Chaidez v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356 (2010), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. We consider here whether that ruling applies retroactively, so that a person whose conviction became final before we decided Padilla can benefit from it. We conclude that, under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit held Padilla nonretroactive on collateral review.
United States v. Chang Hong · Tenth Circuit · filed
we find Padilla is a new rule of constitutional law, but it does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Padilla's new rule nonretroactive.
Rene S. Guevara v. State of Tennessee · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
While we conclude that the requirement established in Padilla was a new rule of law, retroactive application of the rule announced in Padilla is not warranted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The state supreme court held Padilla nonretroactive on collateral review.
Campos v. State · Supreme Court of Minnesota · filed
Because we conclude that Padilla announced a new rule of criminal procedure that does not apply to a collateral review of Reyes Campos’ conviction, we reverse.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to read Padilla as requiring states to create a postjudgment vehicle for otherwise unavailable immigration-advice claims.
People v. Mendoza CA4/3 · California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (unpublished) · filed
Padilla does not require states to provide an avenue for noncitizens to challenge their convictions based on an erroneous immigration advisement when no other remedy is presently available.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Padilla to parole and minimum-service advice.
Larry E. Johnson v. State of Missouri · Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District · filed
Recent Missouri cases, however, have “declined to expand Padilla’s reasoning beyond the deportation context into parole matters.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Padilla to deportation and declined to extend it to sex-offender treatment imposed as a probation condition.
Joshua Zachary Matter v. State of Minnesota · Minnesota Court of Appeals (unpublished) · filed
We disagree. When considering the first Strickland prong, appellate courts have limited the holding of Padilla to deportation cases.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Padilla did not disturb the collateral-consequence rule for habitual-offender proceedings.
State of West Virginia v. Keith D. · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · filed
Because the Supreme Court’s holding in Padilla deals specifically with deportation as a consequence of a guilty plea, Padilla does not affect this Court’s holding in Appleby nor its underlying rationale. This is because in Appleby we expressly found that a habitual offender proceeding is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Padilla to advice about possible post-sentence civil commitment.
State v. Stephen LeMere · Wisconsin Supreme Court · filed
Here, we assess Padilla in a different context: Does the Sixth Amendment require defense counsel to inform a client about the possibility of civil commitment, under Wis. Stat. ch. 980, when the client enters a plea to a sexually violent offense? We conclude that it does not and thus affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Padilla's Sixth Amendment mandate to deportation and declined to extend it to Massachusetts's 2002 sex-offender-registration scheme.
Commonwealth v. Sylvester · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · filed
In that regard, we reiterate our conclusion that the only mandate stemming from the Padilla case is that deportation may not be treated as a collateral consequence outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Padilla to Minnesota predatory-offender registration.
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota · Minnesota Supreme Court · filed
We conclude that Padilla does not compel us to overturn Kaiser because deportation is a more severe consequence than predatory-offender registration, and the Supreme Court has classified deportation as a penalty but has classified predatory-offender registration as “nonpunitive.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Padilla to advice that a state plea could contribute to a future federal prosecution or conviction.
United States v. Johnson · D. Md. · filed
Accordingly, the Court concludes that, even in the wake of Padilla, the possibility of a future federal conviction (or prosecution) following a state court guilty plea is a collateral consequence, and therefore it is not within the “scope of constitutionally ‘reasonable professional assistance’ required under Strickland,” Padilla, 559 U.S. at 365, 130 S.Ct. 1473,
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Padilla v. Kentucky and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace