R E P O R T E D

I N T H E C O U R T O F S P E C I A L A P P E A L S

O F M A R Y L A N D

N o
. 2 2 3 2

S e p t e m b e r T e r m , 2 0 1 1

M I G U E Z A

. G U A R D A D O

v
. S T A T E O F M A R Y L A N D

K r a u s e r , C

. J

. , Z arn o ch , K eh o e,

J J

.

O p i n i o n b y K eh o e, J

.

F i l e d : A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 1 4M ig u ez A. Gua r dad o ap p eals f

ro m a j u d g m en t o f th e C ircu it C o u rt f o r A n n e A ru n d el 1

C o u n ty d en y in g h is p etitio n f o r a w rit o f erro r co ra m n o b is

. H e p resen ts th ree issu es w h ich

w e h av e rew o rd ed slig h tly :
1

. W h e t h e r t h e circu it co u rt erred in h o ld in g th at claim s o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel b ased o n S trickla n d v

. W a sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ), w ere n o t co g n izab le claim s in co ra m n o b is p ro ceed in g s?
2

. Wh eth er th e circu it co u rt f ailed to ap p ly th e co rrect p rej u d ice stan d ard to th e ap p ellan t’s S

trickla n d in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f

co u n sel claim ?
3

. Wh eth er th e circu it co u rt erred in h o ld in g t h a t th e trial co u rt’s
co llateral co n seq u en ces ad v isem en ts p u rsu an t to M a ry lan d Ru le 4

- 2 4 2 (e) co u ld “cu re” w h at w o u ld o th erw ise b e in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f
co u n sel at a g u ilty

p lea p ro ceed in g ?

W e a r e s a t i s f

i e d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e a c h e d t h e c o r r e c t r e s u l t

. T h e r e f o r e , w e w i l l

a f f i r m i t s j u d g m e n t , a l t h o u g h o u r r e a s o n i n g d i f f e r s f r o m t h a t o f t h e c o u r t

. S e e O f f u t t v

.
M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y B d

. o f E d u c

. , 2 8 5 M d

. 5 5 7 , 5 6 4 n
. 4 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( “ [ A ] n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t m a y

a f f i r m a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n a n y g r o u n d a d e q u a t e l y s h o w n b y t h e r e c o r d

. ” )

. B a ckg r o u n d
O n M ay 7 , 2 0 0 8 , in th e C ircu it C o u rt f o r A n n e A ru n d el C o u n ty

, G u ard ad o p led g u ilty

to co n sp iracy to co m

m it th ef t o v er $ 5 0 0

. G u ard ad o w as rep resen ted b y co u n sel d u rin g th e
g u ilty p l ea p ro ceed in g
. T h e co u rt accep ted h is p lea an d sen ten ced G u ard ad o to
im p riso n m en t f

o r o n e y ear w ith all b u t tw o d ay s su sp en d ed , su b j ect t o o n e y ear o f

su p erv isedp ro b atio n an d G u ard ad o ’s p ay m en t o f restitu tio n to th e v ictim

. Wh ile receiv in g G u ard ad o ’s p lea, in relev an t p art, th e circu it co u rt ad v ised G u ard ad o

I n h i s b r i e f

, M r
. G u a r d a d o a s s e r t s t h a t h i s f i r s t n a m e i s M i g u e l

. 1as f

o llo w s:
T h e C o u rt: I am n o t ask in g ab o u t y o u r citizen sh ip , b u t I a m t e l lin g

y o u [ th at] if y o u are n o t a U n ited S t a t es citizen [ ,] th is
case m ay af

f ect y o u r statu s in th is co u n try

. T h is case m ay lead to o th e r c o n seq u en ces su ch as d ep o rtatio n
. If y o u h av e co n cern s in th at area y o u sh o u ld sp eak to y o u r atto rn ey b ef

o re en t e rin g th is g u ilty p lea. D o y o u u n d erstan d th at? [ G u ard ad o ] : Y

es.
A f ter th e co u rt’s ad v isem en t, G u ard ad o d id n o t req u est an o p p o rtu n ity to co n f er w ith
h is co u n sel b ef

o re en terin g th e g u ilty p lea. G u ard ad o n eith er f iled a m o tio n to w ith d raw th e

p lea p u rsu an t to M ary lan d Ru le 4 -2 4 2 ( f ) n o r f iled an ap p licatio n f

o r leav e to ap p eal 2

p u rsu an t to M d

. C o d e A n n
. (2 0 0 6 ) § 1 2

- 3 0 2 ( e ) o f th e C o u rts an d Ju d icial P ro ceed in g s
A rticle an d M ary lan d Ru le 8 -2 0 4

. T h ereaf ter , t h e U n ited S tates D ep artm en t o f H o m elan d S ecu rity (“D H S ”) in itiated

rem o v al p ro ceed in g s ag ain st G u ard ad o , assertin g th at h e w as su b j ect to rem o v al p u rsu an t

M ary lan d R

u le 4 -2 4 2 (f

) p ro v id es: 2

A t an y tim e b ef o re sen ten cin g , th e co u rt m ay p erm it a d ef

en d an t to
w ith d raw a p lea o f

g u ilty . . . w h en th e w ith d raw al serv es th e in terest o f j u stice. A f

ter th e im p o sitio n o f

sen ten ce, o n m o tio n o f

a d ef en d an t f iled
w ith in ten d ay s, th e co u rt m ay set asid e th e j u d g m en t an d p erm it th e d ef en d an t to w ith d raw a p lea o f g u ilty . . . if th e d ef en d an t estab lish es th at th e p ro v isio n s o f

sectio n (c) o r (e) o f

th is Ru le w ere n o t co m

p lied w ith o r th ere w as a v io latio n o f

a p lea ag reem en t en tered in to p u rsu an t to R u le 4

- 2 4 3 . T h e co u rt sh all h o ld a h earin g o n an y tim ely m o tio n to w ith d raw a p lea o f g u ilty

. . . . 2to 8 U .S .C

. § 1 1 8 2 (a)(6 )(i). O n M ay 5 , 2 0 1 1 , G u a r d a d o w as d etain ed b y U n ited S tates 3

Im m ig ratio n an dC u sto m s E n f o rcem en t (“IC E ”) as a resu lt o f h is g u ilty

p lea. 4

O n Ju ly 1 3 , 2 0 1 1 , G u ard ad o , rep resen ted b y d if f eren t co u n sel, f

iled a p etitio n f

o r a

w rit o f erro r co ra m n o b is p u rsu an t to M ary lan d R u l e 1 5

- 1 2 0 2

. H e asserted th at h is

co n s p i r a c y co n v ictio n cau sed h im to b e d etain ed b y IC E an d b arred h im f ro m f ilin g a

p etitio n f o r asy lu m
. A d d itio n ally

, h e claim ed th at h is g u ilty p lea w as en tered in v io latio n o f
th e S ix th A m en d m en t o f th e U n ited S tates C o n stitu tio n b ecau se h is th en -atto rn ey h ad f ailed

to ad v ise h im ab o u t th e imm ig ratio n co n seq u en ces o f th e p lea. G u ard ad o asserted th at, h ad
h e k n o w n o f th ese co n seq u en ces, h e w o u ld n o t h av e p led g u ilty to th e ch arg e. H e ask ed th e
circu it co u rt to v acate h is co n v ictio n f o r th ese reaso n s.
O n N o v em

b er 2 , 2 0 1 1 , th e circu it co u rt h eld a h earin g o n t h e p etitio n f o r w rit o f

co ra m n o b is . T h ere w ere n o liv e w itn esses. T h e ev id en ce p resen ted to th e co u rt co n sisted

o f : (1 ) a tran scrip t o f th e g u ilty p lea p ro ceed in g ; (2 ) a stip u latio n th at, h ad h e b een called to

T h e statu te p ro v id es th at an “[ a] n alien p resen t in th e U n ited S tates w ith o u t b ein g 3 ad m itted o r p aro led , o r w h o arriv es in th e U n ited S tates at an y tim e o r p lace o th er th an as d esig n ated b y

th e A tto rn ey

G en eral, is in ad m issib le.”
G u ard ad o ’s co n v ictio n o f co n sp iracy

to co m m it th ef

t o v er $ 5 0 0 co n stitu teda 4
co n v ictio n o f

an “ag g rav ated f

elo n y ” u n d er th e Im m ig ratio n an d N atio n ality A ct, see 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(4 3 )(G ) an d (U ) (p ro v id in g , in co n cert, th at a co n sp iracy to co m m it “a th ef t o f f en se . . . f o r w h ich [ th ere is] a term o f im p riso n m en t [ o f

] at least o n e y ear”
co n stitu tes an “ag g rav ated f elo n y ”). P erso n s co n v icted o f ag g rav ated f

elo n ies are su b

j ect to d eten tio n b y

IC E

. S ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 6 (c)(1 )(B ) (p ro v id in g th at “[ t] h e A tto rn ey G en eral sh all tak e in to cu sto d y an y alien w h o . . . is d ep o rtab le b y reaso n o f h av in g co m m itted an y

o f f en se co v ered in sectio n 1 2 2 7 (a)(2 )(A ) . . . (iii) [ p ertain in g to ag g rav ated f

elo n ies] ”).

3testif

y , G u ard ad o ’s g u ilty p lea law y er w o u ld h av e testif ied th at, alth o u g h h e “g en erally to ld
h is n o n -citizen crim in al clien ts th at th ey co u ld b e d ep o rted if th ey accep ted a crim in al p lea,”
h e d id n o t “sp ecif

ically rem em

b er talk in g to [ G u ard ad o ] ab o u t th e imm ig ratio n

co n seq u en ces o f th e p lea”; an d (3 ) an af f id av it sig n ed b y G u ard ad o
. T h e af f id av it stated in

p ertin en t p art: [ M y ] atto rn ey to ld m e to p le a d g u i l t y , b ecau se h e said th ere w as n o w ay I
co u ld g o f

ree. I w a s n o t to ld b y my atto rn ey ab o u t th e co n seq u en ces o f m y g u ilty p lea.

A t th e h earin g I w as n o t to ld b y eith er th e p ro secu to r o r th e j u d g e ab o u t th e imm ig ratio n co n seq u e n ces o f a g u ilty p lea. I th eref o re f o llo w ed m

y atto rn ey ’s ad v ice an d p led g u ilty to th e ch ar g es. I w as g iv en o n e y ear p ro b at i o n a n d s p e n t a w eek en d in j ail. H ad I b een to ld , g iv en th e f act th at I
w as in n o cen t an d I h ad d o n e n o th in g w ro n g ; I w o u ld d ef in itely n o t h av e p led g u ilty

. T h e circu it co u rt d en ied th e p etitio n
. In a w ritten o p in io n , th e co u rt ex p ressed so m e
d o u b t as to w h eth er a claim f o r in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel w as c o g n i z a b l e in th e

co n tex t o f a p etitio n f

o r w rit o f erro r co ra m n o b is

. R eso lv in g th at issu e in G u ard ad o ’s f av o r 5
f o r p u rp o ses o f an aly sis, th e co u rt f o u n d th at h e h ad d em o n strated in ef f ectiv e assistan ce b y
h is g u ilty -p lea co u n sel, b u t th at h e su f f ered n o p rej u d ice as a resu lt. S p ecif ically , th e co u rt
stated :
A lth o u g h G u ard ad o w as h arm ed b y th e u n f o rtu n ate o u tco m e o f h is g u ilty p lea, it can n o t b e stated th at h e w as “p rej u d iced ” b y a f ailu re to ad v ise h im o f th e co llateral co n seq u en ces o f h is g u ilty p lea. In f act, as w as ex p lain ed to h im

T h e q u estio n w as reso lv ed in M iller v. S ta te , 4 3 5 M d . 1 7 4 , 1 9 8 (2 0 1 3 ), w h ich 5 in d icates th at assertio n s o f in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f

co u n sel, at least in th e co n tex t o f g u ilty p leas, are co g n izab le in a claim f o r w rit o f erro r co ra m n o b is

. 4[ b y th e circu it co u rt] , h is g u ilty p lea h ad th e v ery co n seq u en ce h e w as w arn ed

ab o u t. H e stated h e u n d ersto o dth at an d w an ted to accep t th e o f f ered p lea.

U n d er M ary lan d R

u le 4 -2 4 2 (e) th e co u rt, alo n e, is p erm itted to ad v ise G u ard ad o o f th e p o ssib le co n seq u en ces o f th e p lea. T h e trial j u d g e d id so
. T h e a d v i c e g iv en to G u ard ad o co m p o rts w ith th e req u irem en ts o f th e ru le

. G u ard ad o w as ad v ised an d ch o se to g am b le w ith th e co llateral co n seq u en ces o f th e g u ilty p lea. H e can n o t n o w claim to h av e b een u n in f o rm ed , m ak in g h is ag reem en t to p lead g u ilty in v o lu n tary

an d u n k n o w in g
. W

o rd s sp o k en b y

th e co u rt h av e m ean in g an d leg al sig n if ican ce. T h ey are n o t id le ch atter to b e easily d isreg ard ed b y

crim in al d ef

en d an ts.
A n a ly sis
A lth o u g h a m

u ltitu d e o f co n ten tio n s are p resen ted b y th e p art i e s, w e co n clu d e th at
th is case tu rn s o n th e retro activ e ap p licab ility o f th e h o ld in g o f P a d illa v

. K e n tu cky , 5 5 9

U .S

. 3 5 6 (2 0 1 0 ) , to g u ilty p leas— su ch as G u ard ad o ’s— m ad e p rio r to M arch 3 1 , 2 0 1 0 (th e
d ate o f th e P a d illa d ecisio n ). T h e S tate co n ten d s th at G u ard ad o d id n o t b rin g a co g n izab le 6
claim f o r in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel p u rsu an t to P a d illa in th e co n tex t o f h is p etitio n
f o r w rit o f erro r co ra m n o b is
. W e ag ree. O u r co n clu sio n is b ased u p o n Ju d g e B attag lia’s

A m o n g th e o th er co n ten tio n s is th e S tate’s arg u m en t th at G u ard ad o w aiv ed h is 6 rig h t to f ile a co ra m n o b is p etitio n b y f ailin g to f ile an ap p licatio n f

o r leav e to ap p eal f ro m h is 2 0 0 8 g u ilty

p lea. Co m

p a re H o lm es v. S ta te , 4 0 1 M d . 4 2 9 , 4 4 5

– 4 6 (2 0 0 7 ) (T h e f ailu re to f ile an ap p licatio n f

o r leav e to ap p eal creates a p resu m p tio n o f w aiv er th at can b e reb u tted b y

a sh o w in g o f

“sp ecial circu m stan ces” ex cu sin g th e f ailu re to f ile an ap p licatio n f

o r leav e to ap p eal.) w ith M iller v. S ta te , 4 3 5 M d . 1 7 4 , 1 8 8 (2 0 1 3 ) (A d ef en d an t’s f ailu re to an ticip ate th e P a d illa d ecisio n is n o t a “sp ecial circu m stan ce” f o r th e p u rp o ses o f H

o lm es. ). A p p aren tly

in reactio n to th e H

o lm es d ecisio n , th e G en eral A ssem b ly en acted § 8 -4 0 1 o f

th e C rim in al P ro ced u re A rticle, ef f ectiv e O cto b er 1 , 2 0 1 2

. S ectio n 8 -4 0 1 p ro v id es th at “[ t] h e f ailu re to seek an ap p eal in a crim in al case m ay n o t b e co n stru ed as a w aiv er o f

th e rig h t to f

ile a p etitio n f

o r w rit o f erro r co ram

n o b is.” T h e statu te w as n o t b ef

o re th e C o u rt in M

iller. In G ra ves v. S ta te, 2 1 5 M d . A p p . 3 3 9 , 3 5 2 (2 0 1 3 ), cert. g ra n ted

, 4 3 7 M d . 6 3 7 (2 0 1 4 ), th is C o u rt co n clu d ed th at C P § 8 -4 0 1
o p erates retro activ ely . T h e C o u rt o f A p p eals h as g ran tedcertio rari o n th is issu e.

5p lu rality

o p in io n in M

iller v . S ta te , 4 3 5 M d . 1 7 4 (2 0 1 3 ).

N early tw o y ears af

ter G u ard ad o p led g u i lty , th e U n ited S tates S u p rem e C o u rt
d ecid ed P a d i l l a , in w h ich th e C o u rt h eld th at co u n sel’s f ailu re to accu rately ad v ise a
d ef en d an t o f th e p o ssib le imm ig ratio n law co n seq u en ces o f a g u ilty p lea v io lated th e
d ef en d an t’s rig h t to ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel gua r an teed b y th e S ix th A m en d m en t. 5 5 9

U .S

. at 3 6 8 -6 9

. T h e C o u rt also h e l d t h a t a d e f en d an t co u ld raise th e issu e in a p o stco n v ictio n relief p ro ce e d i n g
. Id

. at 3 7 4

. T h e P a d illa C o u rt d id n o t ad d ress th e p o ssib le

retro activ e ap p licatio n o f its d ecisio n
. T h e i s s u e o f retro activ ity w as ad d ressed , b u t as it tu rn ed o u t n o t f in ally settled , i n
D en isyu k v

. S ta te , 4 2 2 M d

. 4 6 2 (2 0 1 1 ). In th at case, th e C o u rt o f A p p eals h eld th at P a d illa

ap p lied retro activ ely to p o st-co n v ictio n p ro ceed in g s ch allen g in g g u ilty p leas th at o ccu rred
af ter A p ril 1 , 1 9 9 7

— th e ef f ectiv e d ate o f th e Illeg al Im m ig ratio n R ef o rm an d I mmi g ran t
R esp o n sib ility

A ct o f 1 9 9 6 (“IIR A IR A ”). 7

S u m m arizin g a w ell-d ev elo p ed b o d y o f M ary lan d law ex em p lif ied b y S ta te v

. D a u g h try , 4 1 9 M d

. 3 5 , 7 8 (2 0 1 1 ), th e C o u rt stated th at “w h ere a d ecisio n h as ap p lied settled

p reced en t to n ew an d d if

f eren t f actu al situ atio n s, th e d ecisio n alw ay s ap p lies retro activ ely [ ,]

an d it is o n ly w h ere a n ew ru le

. . . co n stitu tes a clear b reak w i t h t h e p a s t

. . . th at th e

A s n o ted b y

th e C o u rt in P a d illa , th e IIR A IR A ef f ected sw eep in g ch an g es in 7 im m ig ratio n law b y

sig n if ican tly w id en in g th e class o f

d ep o rtab le crim in al o f

f en ses an d b y lim itin g , n early

to th e v an ish in g p o in t, th e A tto rn ey G en eral’s o n ce w id e d iscretio n “to can cel rem o v al f

o r n o n citizen s co n v icted o f p articu lar classes o f

o f f en ses.” 5 5 9 U .S

. at 3 6 4

. 6q u estio n o f p ro sp ectiv e o n ly ap p licatio n arises.” 4 2 2 M d

. at 4 7 8 (citat i o n s an d in tern al

q u o tatio n m ark s o m itted ). T h e C o u rt also p o in t e d to o u r d ecisio n in W a rrick v

. S ta te , 1 0 8

M d

. A p p
. 1 0 8 , 1 1 3 , cert. g ra n ted b u t d ism issed a t r eq u est o f p a rty , 3 4 2 M d

. 5 0 7 (1 9 9 6 ), as

co n cisely su m m arizin g th e ap p ro p riate test: “‘T h e g en eral ru le o f retro activ ity v el n o n can
b e stated sim

p ly

— if th e su b

j ect case m erely ap p lies settled p reced en ts to n ew f acts, th e case
is g iv en retro activ e ef

f ect, f o r th e c a se is v iew ed as n o t ch an g in g th e law in an y m aterial

w ay .’” Id

. A p p ly in g th e D a u g h t r

y test to th e S u p rem e C o u rt’s reaso n in g in P a d illa , an d af ter

su rv ey in g d ecisio n s f

ro m o th er j u risd ictio n s, th e C o u rt o f A p p eals co n clu d ed th at P a d illa
sh o u ld b e af

f o rd edretro activ e ef

f ect b ecau se:
S trickla n d set f

o rth a g en eral stan d ard f

o r ap p licatio n to a sp ecif

ic set o f f acts; th at d ecisio n s ap p ly in g th e S trickla n d [ v

. W a sh in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 )] stan d ard d o n o t estab lish a ru le o f p ro sp ectiv e ap p li c atio n o n ly ; an d th at P a d illa is an ap p licatio n o f S trickla n d to a sp ecif

ic set o f f acts.
4 2 2 M d

. at 4 8 1

. In a f

o o tn o te, th e C o u rt n o ted th at th e cases f ro m o th er j u risd ictio n s th at it
f o u n d p ersu asiv e relied u p o n th e retro activ ity an aly sis set o u t in T

ea g u e v . L a n e, 4 8 9 U .S

. 2 8 8 (1 9 8 9 ). T h e C o u rt co n tin u ed :

8

In T ea g u e , th e C o u rt stated : 8

In g en eral, h o w ev er, a case an n o u n ces a n ew ru le w h en it b reak s n ew g ro u n do r im

p o ses a n ew o b lig atio n o n th e S tates o r th e F ed eral G o v ern m en t. T o p u t it d if f eren tly , a case an n o u n ces a n ew ru le if th e resu lt
w as n o t d ictated b y

p reced en t ex istin g at th e tim e th e d ef en d an t’s
co n v ictio n b ecam e f

in al. (co n tin u ed ...)

7M ary lan d h as n o t ad o p ted T ea g u e , n o r m

u st i t

. S e e D a n

fo rth v

. M in n eso ta , 5 5 2 U .S

. 2 6 4 , 2 8 2 (2 0 0 8 ) (statin g th at T ea g u e “d o es n o t in an y w ay lim it th e au th o rity o f a state co u rt, w h en rev iew in g its o w n state crim in al co n v ictio n s, t o p r o v i d e a rem ed y f

o r a v io latio n th at is d eclared ‘n o n retro activ e’ u n d e r T ea g u e .”). T h u s, ev en if th e S u p rem e C o u rt ev er w ere to h o ld th at P a d illa is
n o t retro activ e u n d er T

ea g u e , th at h o ld in g w o u ld h av e n o ad v erse ef f ect o n o u r an aly sis h ere. In d eed , w e cite an d d i s c u s s th ese cases b ecau se w e f in d p ersu asiv e, an d su b scrib e to , th e an aly sis th ese co u rts g av e to th e P a d illa d ecisio n
. 4 2 2 M d . at 4 8 0 n .8

. T h e scen ario p o sited b y th e C o u rt o f A p p eals cam e to p ass in C h a id ez v

. U n i t ed
S ta tes ,

_ _ _ U .S

.

_ _ _ , 1 3 3 S

. C t. 1 1 0 3 (2 0 1 3 ). In th at case, th e S u p rem e C o u rt, ap p ly in g th e

p rin cip les articu lated in T ea g u e , co n c lu d ed th at P a d illa d id n o t h av e retro activ e ef f ect in

co llateral p ro ceed in g s. W ritin g f o r th e m aj o rity

, Ju stice K ag an n o ted th at th e S u p rem e C o u rt
itself h ad ex p ressly d eclin ed to ad d ress w h eth er in ad eq u ate ad v ice as to th e ef f ect o f a g u ilty

p lea u p o n a d ef

en d an t’s imm ig ratio n sta t u s v i o lated th e S ix th A m en d m en t’s g u aran tee o f
ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel in H ill v

. L o ckh a rt , 4 7 4 U .S

. 5 2 , 6 0 ( 1 9 8 5 ). 1 3 3 S .C t. at
1 1 0 8

. Ju stice K ag an su rv ey ed d ecisio n s b y f ed eral an d state ap p ellate co u rts f iled af ter H ill

an d b ef o re P a d illa , an d co n clu d ed th at th e g en eral ru le w as th at ad v ice as to p o ssib le
im m ig ratio n law ef

f ects o f a g u ilty p lea w as “co llateral” to a g u ilty p lea, an d th u s n o t w ith in
th e p ale o f

th e S ix th A m en d m en t’s g u aran tee. Id

. at 1 1 0 9 n . 7 , 8 , an d 9 . S h e th en stated :
S o w h en w e d ecid ed P a d illa , w e an sw ered a q u estio n ab o u t th e S ix th A m en d m en t’s reach th at w e h ad lef t o p en , in a w ay th at alte r e d th e law o f
m o st j u risd ictio n s
. . . . M an y co u rts, w e ack n o w led g ed , h ad ex clu d ed ad v ice

(...co n tin u ed ) 8 4 8 9 U .S . at 3 0 1 (citatio n s o m itted ) (em p h asis o m itted ).

8ab o u t co llateral m atters f ro m th e S ix th A m en d m en t’s am b it; an d d ep o rtatio n ,

. . . co u ld w e l l b e v i ew ed as su ch a m atter

. . . . A n d h o w ev er ap t th at d istin ctio n m ig h t b e in o th er co n tex ts, it sh o u l d n o t ex em p t f ro m S ix th A m en d me n t scru tin y a law y er’s ad v ice (o r n o n -ad v ice) ab o u t a p lea’s d ep o rtatio n risk

. . . . . W

e th u s reso lv ed th e th r esh o ld q u estio n b ef o re u s b y b reach in g th e p rev io u sly ch in k -f ree w all b etw een d irect an d co llateral
co n seq u en ces: N o tw ith stan d in g th e th en -d o m in an t v iew , “ S trickla n d ap p lies to P ad illa’s claim .”
If th at d o es n o t co u n t as “b reak [ in g ] n ew g ro u n d ” o r “im p o s[ in g ] a n ew o b lig atio n ,” w e are h ard p ressed to k n o w w h at w o u ld

. Id

. at 1 1 1 0 (citatio n s o m itted ).

T h is b rin g s u s to M

iller v

. S ta te , 4 3 5 M d

. 1 7 4 (2 0 1 3 ), in w h ich th e C o u rt o f A p p eals

so u g h t to reco n cile its h o ld in g in D en isyu k w ith C h a id ez
. M iller , lik e th e case b ef

o re u s,
in v o lv ed a co ra m n o b is p etitio n seek in g to v acate a g u ilty p lea th at h ad ad v erse imm ig ratio n
law co n seq u en ces. Id

. at 1 7 9 -8 0

. 9

M iller p resen ts a th resh o ld p ro b lem

. T h ere is n o m aj o rity o p in io n
. Ju d g es B attag lia,

H arrell, an d A d k in s co n clu d ed th at C h a id ez lim its D en isyu k’s am

b it to cases in w h ich th e

M iller’s co m

p lex p ro ced u ral h isto ry

illu strates th e u n certain ties su rro u n d in g 9 P a d illa ’s p o ssib le retro activ e ap p licatio n . In M iller v. S ta te , 1 9 6 M d . A p p . 6 5 8 , 6 7 9 -8 0 (2 0 1 0 ) (“ M iller I” ), th is C o u rt h eld th at P a d illa d id n o t ap p ly retro activ ely . T h is case
w as d ecid ed p rio r to D en isyu k. T h e C o u rt o f A p p eals v acated th e d ecisio n an d rem an d ed it to u s f o r reco n sid eratio n in lig h t o f D en isyu k . 4 2 3 M d . 4 7 4 (2 0 1 1 ) (“ M iller II ”). O n rem an d , w e co n clu d ed th at P a d illa ’s retro sp ectiv e ap p licatio n d idn o t af f ect th e o u tco m e o f M iller’s case b ecau se M iller d id n o t b ase h is p etitio n o n in ef f ectiv e assistan ce co u n sel, b u t rath er o n w h eth er h is p lea w as v o lu n tary . 2 0 7 M d . A p p . 4 5 3 , 4 6 0 (2 0 1 2 ) (“ M iller III ”). A d d itio n ally , w e co m m en ted th at “[ w ] h atev er th e f u tu re m ay

h o ld , M ary lan d in th e p ast h as reg u larly

an d in v ariab ly

f o llo w ed th e S u p rem e C o u rt’s g u id an ce o n th e issu e o f retro activ ity

/p ro sp ectiv ity

an dM ary lan d , f

o r th e p resen t, co n tin u es to f o llo w th e S u p rem e C o u rt g u id elin es. T h o se S u p rem e C o u rt g u id elin es are to b e f o u n d in T ea g u e . . . .” Id

. at 4 6 7

. 9“claim s o f in v o lu n ta r i n e s s o r in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel resu ltin g f ro m [ th e

p etitio n er’s] f

ailu re to b e ad v ised o f th e ad v erse imm ig ratio n co n seq u en ces o f h is p lea h ad
in d ep en d en t state b ases in M ary lan d ” at th e tim e o f th e g u ilty p lea p ro ceed in g
. 4 3 5 M d

. at
1 9 8

. W ritin g sep arately b u t j o in in g in th e resu lt, Ju d g e M c D o n a ld stated th at h e f o u n d
“Ju stice K ag an ’s an aly sis f o r th e C h a id ez m aj o rity p ersu asiv e an d w o u ld ap p ly it h ere.” 4 3 5

M d

. at 2 0 0

. C h ief Ju d g e B a rb e r a , j o i n ed b y Ju d g e G reen e an d f o rm er C h ief Ju d g e B ell,
d issen ted

. In th eir v iew , th e C o u rt’s “reaso n in g in D en isyu k w as so u n d an d th is C o u rt is n o t

req u ired to d ep art f

ro m it, n o r sh o u ld it.” 4 3 5 M d . at 2 0 5

. In D err v

. S ta te , 4 3 4 M d

. 8 8 , 1 1 4 (2 0 1 3 ), cert d en ied su b n o m , D err v

. M a ryla n d ,

_ _ _ _ U .S

.

_ _ _ _ , 2 0 1 4 WL 2 5 6 0 4 8 0 (2 0 1 4 ), th e C o u rt o f A p p eals co n sid ered th e

p reced en tial ef

f ect o f W illia m s v

. Illin o is ,

_

_ _ U .S

.

_ _ _ , 1 3 2 S

. C t. 2 2 2 1 (2 0 1 2 ), an o th er case

w ith o u t a m aj o rity o p in io n
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p eals stated th at “‘[ w ] h en a f rag m en ted C o u rt
d ecid es a case an d n o sin g le ratio n ale ex p lain in g th e resu lt en j o y s th e assen t o f f

iv e Ju stices,

t h e h o l d i n g o f th e C o u rt m ay b e v iew ed as th at p o sitio n tak en b y th o se M em b ers w h o

co n cu rred in th e j u d g m en ts o n th e n arro w est g ro u n d s.’” Id

. (q u o tin g M

a rks v

. U n ited S ta tes , 4 3 0 U .S . 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 (1 9 7 7 )). W e w ill ap p ly

th e sam e stan d ard to M

iller

. P a d illa h eld th at th e S ix th A m en d m en t’s g u aran tee o f ad eq u ate leg al co u n sel is

v io lated w h en a law y er f ail s t o ad v ise a n o n citizen clien t o f p o ssib le imm ig ratio n law

co n seq u en ces b ef

o re th e clien t en ters a g u il t y p l e a
. C h a id ez , D en isyu k, an d th e v ario u s

o p in io n s in M

iller ad d ress th e circu m stan ces u n d er w h ich P a d illa ’s h o ld in g is to b e ap p lied

10in co l l a t e ral ch allen g es to co n v ictio n s th at b ecam e f in al b ef o re P a d illa w as f

iled

. Ju d g es
B attag lia, H arrell, an d A d k in s stated th at P a d illa sh o u ld b e g iv en retro activ e ef f ect o n ly

w h en state law p r o v i d es an in d ep en d en t b asis f o r a p etitio n er’s claim

. Im p licit in Ju d g e
M cD o n ald ’s co n cu rrin g o p in io n is t h e s u g g estio n th at P a d illa sh o u ld n o t b e g iv en

retro activ e ef

f ect in co llateral p ro ceed in g s ch allen g in g crim in al co n v ictio n s. (T h is w as th e

co n clu sio n reach ed b y Ju stice K ag an in C h a id ez, w h o se reaso n in g Ju d g e M cD o n ald f o u n d

to b e p ersu asiv e. ) In o u r v iew , th e p lu rality o p in io n b y Ju d g e B attag lia rep resen ts th e

n arro w er h o ld in g . W

e tu rn to it n o w
. Ju d g e B attag lia b eg an th e relev an t p o rtio n o f h er an aly sis b y n o tin g th at, in D a n fo rth

v

. M in n eso ta , 5 5 2 U .S

. 2 6 4 (2 0 0 8 ), th e S u p rem e C o u rt “traced th e h isto ry o f its o w n

retro activ ity j u risp ru d en ce lead in g to T ea g u e an d co n clu d ed th at its stan d ard s f o r

retro activ ity w ere in ten d ed ‘to ap p ly o n ly to f ed eral co u rts co n sid erin g h ab eas co rp u s

pe t i t i ons ch allen g in g state-co u rt crim in al co n v ictio n s[ .] ’” 435 Md. a t 194 ( quot i ng Danf or t h , 5 5 2 U

. S

. at 2 7 9 ). A s a resu lt, “ T ea g u e ‘d o es n o t in an y w ay lim it th e au th o rity o f a state

co u rt, w h en rev iew in g its o w n state crim in al co n v ictio n s, to p ro v id e a rem ed y f o r a v io latio n
th at is d eem ed ‘n o n retro activ e’ u n d er T ea g u e .’” 4 3 5 M d

. at 1 9 3 (f o o tn o te o m itted ) (q u o tin g
D a n fo rth , 5 5 2 U .S . at 2 8 2 ). Ju d g e B attag lia th en cam e to th e n u b o f th e issu e:
A s w e r e c o g n ized in D en isyu k , w e h av e n ev er ex p ressly ad o p ted T ea g u e , n o r d o w e n eed to h ere. C ertain ly , w ere w e to h av e ad o p ted T ea g u e as o u r stan d ard , th e reso lu tio n o f th is case w o u ld b e f acile an d reso lu te. In th e ab sen ce o f th e stew ard sh ip o f T ea g u e , th o u g h , retro activ ity o f P a d illa really is n o t th e issu e, b ecau se, as a state c o u r t r e v i e w in g M iller’s state crim in al
co n v ictio n , w e co u ld p ro v id e a state rem ed y f o r t h e v i o latio n s th at M iller

1 1asserts w ere o n e to h av e ex isted at th at tim e. In so d o in g , h o w ev er , w e can n o t

create a f

ed eral rem ed y d en ied b y th e S u p r e m e C o u rt, b u t m u st ex p lo re w h eth er th ere is a b asis in state law to p ro v id e M i ller a rem ed y , b ey o n d th at
w h ich w o u ld b e af

f o rd ed in f ed eral co u rt.
4 3 5 M d . at 1 9 4 (citatio n o m itted ; em p h asis in o rig in al). 1 0

T h e p lu rality

co n tin u ed :
T h e issu e b ef

o re u s in th e in stan t case, th u s, b eco m es w h eth er M iller’s claim s o f in v o lu n tarin ess o r in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel resu ltin g f r o m h is f ailu re to b e ad v ised o f th e ad v erse imm ig ratio n co n seq u en ces o f h is p lea h ad in d ep en d en t state b ases in M ary lan d in 1 9 9 9

. Wh en q u eried o n th is p o in t at o ral ar g u m en t, M iller's co u n sel co u ld n o t id en tif y an y su ch state b ases f

o r af f o rd in g M iller relief

, b ecau se th ere are n o n e.
Id

. at 1 9 8

. In h er an aly sis, Ju d g e B attag lia id en tif ied o n ly tw o p o ssib le g ro u n d s in M ary lan d law

to su p p o rt retro activ e ap p licatio n o f P a d illa : A rticle 2 1 o f th e D eclaratio n o f

R ig h ts an d

1 1

In a f o o tn o te ap p en d ed to th is p assag e, Ju d g e B attag lia ex p lain ed : 1 0

Were w e to in d ep en d en tly assert th at

P a d illa w as retro activ e co n trary to th e S u p rem e C o u rt in C h a id ez , f ed eral co n stitu tio n al law p rio r to 2 0 1 0 w o u ld h av e tw o d istin ctly d if f eren t ap p licatio n s in M ary lan d

. E ssen tially , a n o n -citizen w h o h ad n o t b een ad v isedo f ad v erse im m ig ratio n co n seq u en ces d u rin g a p lea co llo q u y co u ld seek red ress in a state co u rt f o r a v io latio n o f

th e U n itedS tates C o n stitu tio n , b u t co u ld n o t d o so in th e U n ited S tates D istrict C o u rt f o r th e D istrict o f

M ary lan d o n an id en tical b asis. T h at can n o t b e th e an sw er w h en th e U n ited S tates S u p rem e C o u rt is th e f in al arb iter o f

f ed eral law

. Id

. at 1 9 4 n .9

. A rticle 2 1 states in p ertin en t p art: “T h at in all crim in al p ro secu tio n s, ev ery m an 1 1 h ath a rig h t . . . to b e allo w ed co u n sel . . . .”

12f

o rm er M ary lan d Ru le 4 -2 4 2 (e). N eith er w as su f f icien t f o r th e task

. 1 2

Ju d g e B attag lia p o in ted o u t th at M ary lan d co u rts trad itio n ally in terp reted A rticle 2 1 's

g u aran tee o f ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel as in p a ri m a teria w ith th e S ix th A m en d m en t’s.
Id

. at 1 9 7

– 9 8 (citin g , am o n g o th er cases, P erry v

. S ta te , 3 5 7 M d

. 3 7 , 7 8 (1 9 9 9 ); an d W ig g in s

v . S ta te , 3 5 2 M d . 5 8 0 , 6 0 2

– 0 3 (1 9 9 9 )). Ju d g e B attag lia co n tin u ed :
A f te r S t rickla n d w as d ecid ed , m o reo v er , w e f latly stated th at, “[ t] h ere is n o d istin ctio n b etw een th e rig h t to co u n sel g u aran teed b y th e S ix th A m en d m en t an d A rt. 2 1 o f th e M ary lan d D eclaratio n o f R ig h ts

. . . .,” S ta te v

. T ich n ell , 3 0 6 M d

. 4 2 8 , 4 4 0 (1 9 8 6 ), an d h ad n o t w av ered f ro m th at p o sitio n p rio r to M iller's g u ilty p lea. * * * W

e, clearly , th en , p rio r to M iller’s g u ilty p lea an d co n v ictio n in 1 9 9 9 , h ad n o t articu lated th at A rticle 2 1 p ro v id ed an in d ep en d en t state b asis f o r f in d in g co u n sel d ef

icien t b ased u p o n a f

ailu re to p ro v id e ad v ice reg ard in g ad v erse imm ig ratio n co n seq u en ces p rio r to o r d u rin g g u ilty p lea p ro ceed in g s.
4 3 5 M d . at 1 9 9 (so m e citatio n s o m itted ).

A s t o Ru le 4 -2 4 2 (e), “w h ich m an d ated a trial co u rt in f o rm a d ef

en d an t o f th e

p o ssib ility o f ad v erse imm ig ratio n co n seq u en c e s , ” Ju d g e B attag lia n o ted th at th e Ru le

A s p rev io u sly

d iscu ssed , Ru le 4 -2 4 2 (e) h as b een tran sf erred to 4 -2 4 2 (f

). It read s 1 2 in p ertin en t p art: (f ) C o lla tera l co n seq u en ces o f a p lea o f g u ilty , co n d itio n a l p lea o f g u ilty , o r p lea o f

n o lo co n ten d ere. B ef

o re th e co u rt accep ts a p lea o f g u ilty , a co n d itio n al p lea o f g u ilty , o r a p lea o f

n o lo co n ten d ere, th e co u rt, th e S tate’s A tto rn ey , th e atto rn ey f o r th e d ef en d an t, o r an y

co m b in atio n th ereo f sh all ad v ise th e d ef

en d an t (1 ) th at b y

en terin g th e p lea, if

th e d ef en d an t is n o t a U n ited S tates citizen , th e d ef en d an t m ay

f ace ad d itio n al
co n seq u en ces o f

d ep o rtatio n , d eten tio n , o r in elig ib ility f o r citizen sh ip , . . . an d (3 ) th at th e d ef

en d an t sh o u ld co n su lt w ith d ef en se co u n sel if

th e d ef en d an t is rep resen ted an d n eed s ad d itio n al in f o rm atio n co n cern in g th e p o ten tial co n seq u en ces o f th e p lea. T h e o m issio n o f ad v ice co n cern in g th e co llateral co n seq u en ces o f a p lea d o es n o t itself

m an d ate th at th e p lea b e d eclared in v alid

. 13f

u rth er p ro v id ed th at “th e f ailu re to so ad v ise a d ef

en d an t d id ‘n o t itself m an d ate th at th e

p lea b e d eclared i nva l i d. ’ ” I d. a t 1 9 9

. T h eref

o re, co n clu d ed Ju d g e B attag lia, “M iller’s claim s,
in sh o rt, are n o t red ressab le.” Id

. at 2 0 0

. M iller’s g u ilty p lea w as en tered in 1 9 9 9 ; G u ard ad o ’s in 2 0 0 8

. B u t th e ap p licab le law
is u n altered

. A r t i c l e 2 1 is still read in p a ri m a teria w ith th e S ix th A m en d m en t. S ee, e.g ., S ta te v

. W a lker , 4 1 7 M d

. 5 8 9 , 6 0 4 n .8 (2 0 1 1 ). M o reo v er , G u ard ad o d id n o t seek relief u n d er
A rticle 2 1

. H is p etitio n , ar g u ab ly , can b e read to su g g est th at th e j u d g e in th e g u ilty p lea

p ro ceed in g f

ailed to co m

p ly w ith w h at is n o w R

u le 2 -2 4 2 (f

). B u t, as th e tran scrip t o f t h at
h earin g clearly in d icates, th e g u ilty p lea co u rt co m p lied w ith th e ru le b y ad v isin g G u ard ad o
th at “T h is case m ay lead to o th er co n seq u en ces su c h a s d ep o rtatio n
. If y o u h av e co n cern s
i n th at area y o u sh o u ld sp eak to y o u r atto rn ey b ef o re en terin g th is g u ilty p lea. D o y o u

u n d erstan d th at? ” G u ard ad o resp o n d ed “Y es.” A n d , o f co u rse, a v io latio n o f th e ru le alo n e
is n o t a b asis to set asid e th e p lea. M iller , 4 3 5 M d . at 1 9 9

. T h e circu it co u rt d id n o t err in d en y in g G u ard ad o ’s p etitio n f o r a w rit o f erro r co ra m

n o b is b ecau se th e lin ch p in o f h is co n ten tio n s, n am ely , th at P a d illa ap p lied retro activ ely to
h is case, w as in co rrect.
T H E J U D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T F O R A N N E A R U N D E L C O U N T Y IS A F F IR M E D
. A P P E L L A N T T O P

A Y C O S T S
.

14