March 13, 2013
LEE MICHAEL CASTILLO, APPLICANT-APPELLEE,
STATE OF IOWA, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Vogel, P.J.
An applicant appeals the district court's order denying post-conviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Danilson and Mullins, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part.
A post-conviction relief applicant, Lee Castillo, appeals the district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. The district court determined Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) was not retroactive and therefore Castillo's application was denied. In Padilla, the Supreme Court of the United States held the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from entering a guilty plea. The Supreme Court recently determined "under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect." Chaidez v. United States, S. Ct. , 2013 WL 610201 (2013) (holding Padilla's consideration of a "threshold question" of whether "advice about deportation [was] 'categorically removed' from the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel because it involved only a 'collateral consequence' of a conviction, rather than a component of the criminal sentence" announced a new rule of law).
We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Castillo's application for post-conviction relief because Padilla is a new rule and therefore only applicable to cases on direct review. Under the status of the law at the time of Castillo's plea, his counsel had no affirmative duty to advise him about the risk of deportation and therefore was not ineffective. We affirm the district court, pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(1)(c), (e).
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.