# Chaidez v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 20, 2013 · 568 U.S. 342

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502787

## Case

- **Full name:** Chaidez v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 20, 2013
- **Citations:** 568 U.S. 342; 133 S. Ct. 1103; 185 L. Ed. 2d 149; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1613
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Kagan, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Thomas, Sotomayor, Glnsburg
- **Cited by:** 929 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502787

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim recognized in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) concerning counsel’s failure to advise the defendant about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea did not have a retroac…
- holding that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim recognized in Padilla v. Kentucky, 599 U.S. 356 (2010) concerning counsel’s failure to advise the defendant about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea did not have a retroactive effect
- recognizing that the Supreme Court “announced a new rule in Padilla. Under Teague[ v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) ], defendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla therefore cannot benefit from its holding”
- recognizing that, before Padilla, “lower courts…almost universally” held that the Sixth Amendment did not require defense attorneys to advise defendants about non-criminal consequences of a plea, such as deportation or inadmissibility
- holding that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), does not apply retroac tively

## Opinion text

Justice Thomas,
concurring in the judgment.
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356 (2010), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to apprise his client of the risk of deportation created by a guilty plea. I dissented. The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions,” an accused enjoys the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” By its terms, this right extends “to legal *359 advice directly related to defense against prosecution of the charged offense,” and “[tjhere is no basis in text or in principle” to expand the reach of this guarantee to guidance concerning the collateral consequences of a guilty plea. Id., at 389-390 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Today, the Court finds that Padilla announced a new rule of constitutional law and that, under our decision in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), “defendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla therefore cannot benefit from its holding.” Ante, at 358. I continue to believe that Padilla was wrongly decided and that the Sixth Amendment does not extend—either prospectively or retrospectively—to advice concerning the collateral consequences arising from a guilty plea. I, therefore, believe that the Teague analysis is unnecessary and thus concur only in the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502787. Public record. Not legal advice.