This opinion was filed for record 

at 8:<?ottrn on Mat9J. 201S" 

~onald ~--p~ R. Carpe~ter 

Supreme Court Clerk 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

In the Matter of the Personal 

Restraint of 

YUNG-CHENG TSAI, 

Petitioner. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_______________________) 

In the Matter of the Personal 

Restraint of 

MUHAMMADOU JAGANA, 

Petitioner. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) _______________________ ) 

No. 88770-5 

(consolidated with 

No. 89992-4) 

ENBANC 

Filed: MAY 0 7 2015 

YU, J.-As applied to Washington, the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 

U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010) is an affirmation of an old n1le 

of state constitutional law-the duty to provide effective assistance of counsel 

includes the duty to reasonably research and apply relevant statutes. However, 

language in certain Washington appellate cases made it appear that this well-
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

established rule did not apply to RCW 1 0.40.200. In superseding those cases, 

Padilla significantly changed state law. 

Muhammadou Jagana raises a claim that would have been rejected before 

Padilla based on those superseded appellate cases. We therefore reverse the Court 

of Appeals' order dismissing Jagana's personal restraint petition (PRP) and remand 

to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. However, Yung-Cheng Tsai's claim 

was available before Padilla, and Tsai did in fact raise his claim with the assistance 

of an attorney in 2008. That motion was denied based on an issue of law not 

affected by Padilla, and Tsai did not appeal. We therefore affirm the Court of 

Appeals' order dismissing Tsai 's PRP. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. Yung-Cheng Tsai 

On July 27, 2006, Tsai pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of 

a controlled substance with intent to deliver (marijuana). On August 29, 2006, the 

trial court sentenced him to 11 months in jail and 12 months of community 

custody. Tsai did not appeal. On or about October 30, 2007, Tsai received a 

notice to appear from the United States Immigration and Naturalization Services, 

which informed him that he was subject to removal (also known as deportation) 

based on his conviction. 

2 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

On July 21, 2008, Tsai filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under CrR 

7 .8, alleging that his attorney wrongfully advised him he would not be deportable 

if he accepted the State's plea offer and that this erroneous advice was prejudicial. 

The trial court denied Tsai' s motion as time barred. The motion was filed over one 

year after Tsai pleaded guilty, and the trial court held that equitable tolling did not 

apply. The trial court did not transfer Tsai' s motion to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as a PRP. Tsai did not appeal or otherwise pursue his 2008 motion. 

On May 18, 2011, Tsai again moved to withdraw his guilty plea under CrR 

7.8 based on his attorney's alleged erroneous advice. Tsai argued his motion was 

exempt from the one-year time bar in RCW 10.73.090(1) under RCW 10.73.100(6) 

because Padilla and State v. Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d 163, 249 P.3d 1015 (2011) 

(applying Padilla) effected a significant, material change in the law that applies 

retroactively. 

The trial court initially denied Tsai's 2011 motion, holding it was time 

barred. On Tsai' s motion, the trial court vacated its holding and transferred the 

motion to the Court of Appeals to be considered as a PRP. The Court of Appeals 

denied Tsai's PRP as time barred, holding that Padilla and Sandoval do not apply 

retroactively. We granted Tsai's motion for discretionary review and consolidated 

his case with Jagana's. In re Pers. Restraint ofYung-Cheng Tsai, 180 Wn.2d 

1014,327 P.3d 55 (2014). 

3 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

B. Muhammadou Jagana 

On June 7, 2006, Jagana pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a 

controlled substance (cocaine). He was sentenced to three months of electronic 

home monitoring. J agana did not appeal. 

On November 4, 2010, Jagana moved to withdraw his guilty plea under CrR 

7.8. Relying on Padilla, Jagana asserted that his attorney failed to investigate 

Jagana's immigration status, did not advise him that his guilty plea could have 

immigration consequences, and did not advise him to speak with an immigration 

attorney. The trial court transferred Jagana's motion to the Court of Appeals to be 

considered as a PRP. 

The Court of Appeals initially filed a published opinion holding Jagana's 

PRP was timely under RCW 10.73.100(6) and remanding the case to the trial court 

for a reference hearing. In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, 170 Wn. App. 32, 282 

P.3d 1153 (2012). The Court of Appeals reasoned that Padilla was a significant, 

material change in the law and that Padilla should apply retroactively because it 

was not a new rule; it merely applied the standard analysis for ineffective 

assistance of counsel to a new set of facts. 

The State sought discretionary review, and we remanded to the Court of 

Appeals for reconsideration in light of Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S._, 133 

S. Ct. 1103, 1107, 185 L. Ed. 2d 149 (2013), which held Padilla did announce a 

4 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

new rule that does not apply retroactively to matters on collateral review. In re 

Pers. Restraint of Jagana, 177 Wn.2d 1027, 309 P.3d 1186 (2013). On 

reconsideration, the Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion and dismissed Jagana's 

PRP as time barred. We granted Jagana's motion for discretionary review and 

consolidated his case with Tsai' s. In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, 180 Wn.2d 

1014,327 P.3d 55 (2014). 

ISSUES 

A. Are the PRPs exempt from the one-year time bar in RCW 

10.73.090(1) under RCW 10.73.100(6)? 

B. If the PRPs are not time barred, are the petitioners entitled to relief or 

evidentiary hearings on the merits of their claims? 

ANALYSIS 

A. As applied to Washington, Padilla did not announce a new rule, but it did 

effect a significant change in the law under RCW 10.73.100(6) 

1. The unreasonable failure to give any advice about the immigration 

consequences of a guilty plea was already deficient performance in 

Washington under the ordinary Strickland test 

A criminal defendant's right to the assistance of counsel derives from the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 of the 

Washington Constitution. Under these provisions, a criminal defense attorney has 

the constitutional duty to provide assistance that is effective. Strickland v. 

5 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of.Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Where 

a defense attorney makes "errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 

'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment," the attorney's 

performance is constitutionally deficient. !d. at 687. Where that deficiency 

deprives the defendant of fair proceedings, the defendant has suffered prejudice 

because there is "a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result 

unreliable." Id. Unreliable results caused by defense counsel's prejudicially 

deficient performance are constitutionally intolerable. 

When determining whether a defense attorney provided effective assistance, 

the underlying test is always one of "reasonableness under prevailing professional 

norms." Id. at 688. While simple to state in theory, this test can be complicated to 

apply in practice. The court must engage in a fact-specific inquiry into the 

reasonableness of an attorney's actions, measured against the applicable prevailing 

professional norms in place at the time. Id. at 690. It is thus impossible to 

"exhaustively define the obligations of counsel [ ]or form a checklist for judicial 

evaluation of attorney performance." Id. at 688. Nevertheless, effective 

representation "entails certain basic duties," such as 

a duty of loyalty, a duty to avoid conflicts of interest[,] ... the 

overarching duty to advocate the defendant's cause and the more 

particular duties to consult with the defendant on important decisions 

and to keep the defendant informed of important developments in the 

course of the prosecution. Counsel also has a duty to bring to bear 

6 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

I d. 

such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial 

testing process. 

It is against this backdrop that we consider whether Padilla applies 

retroactively under RCW 10.73.100(6) and Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. 

Ct. 1060, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989). Under Teague, new constitutional rules of 

criminal procedure usually apply only to matters on direct review, but old rules 

apply to matters on both direct and collateral review. Whorton v. Bockting, 549 

U.S. 406, 416, 127 S. Ct. 1173, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2007). Because it is impossible to 

exhaustively define a defense attorney's obligations under Strickland, cases that 

merely apply the ordinary test for ineffective assistance of counsel to new facts do 

not announce new rules for Teague purposes. Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1107 (citing 

Strickland, 466 U.S. 668). As applied to Washington law, Padilla is just such a 

case. 

In Chaidez, the Supreme Court held that Padilla did not merely apply the 

ordinary test for ineffective assistance of counsel; it first considered the threshold 

question of whether defense counsel has any constitutional duty to advise 

noncitizen defendants about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. I d. 

at 1108. The notion that defense counsel has no such duty arose from a distinction 

many courts have drawn between direct and collateral consequences. Padilla, 559 

7 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

U.S. at 365 & n.9. Immigration consequences were usually considered collateral 

and thus outside the scope of defense counsel's constitutional duty to advise. Id. at 

364-65. Padilla did not fully reject the direct-versus-collateral distinction but held 

it was not appropriate as applied to immigration consequences. Id. at 366. 

This court first explicitly adopted the distinction between direct and 

collateral consequences in a 1980 case holding that habitual criminal proceedings 

were collateral consequences. State v. Barton, 93 Wn.2d 301,305, 609 P.2d 1353 

(1980). Within three years of Barton, our legislature did what Padilla ultimately 

did in 2010-it rejected the direct-versus~collateral distinction as applied to 

immigration consequences, declaring that a noncitizen defendant must be warned 

about immigration consequences before pleading guilty. 1 LAws OF 1983, ch. 199 

§ 1(1), codified at RCW 10.40.200(1). To give effect to this statute, the standard 

plea form in CrR 4.2 was promptly amended to include a statement warning 

noncitizen defendants of possible immigration consequences. That warning 

statement is not, itself, the required advice; it merely creates a rebuttable 

1

Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, we are not holding that the legislature has the authority to 

define the scope of constitutionally effective counsel. Rather, we are giving effect to our own 

precedent, which holds that a defense attorney has a basic duty to know and apply relevant 

statutes and professional norms, and the unreasonable failure to fulfill that duty is 

constitutionally deficient. E.g., State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862,215 P.3d 177 (2009); see 

also Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986) 

(deficient performance where counsel failed to file a timely suppression motion because he did 

not engage in any pretrial discovery and therefore was not aware of the evidence to be 

presented). 

8 
In re Pers. Restraint o.fTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

presumption the defendant has been properly advised. RCW 1 0.40.200(2); 

Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d at 173. 

RCW 1 0.40.200's plain language gives noncitizen defendants the 

unequivocal right to advice regarding immigration consequences and necessarily 

imposes a correlative duty on defense counsel to ensure that advice is provided. 

State v. Butler, 17 Wn. App. 666, 675, 564 P.2d 828 (1977) ("Beyond the 

defendant's power oflmowledge and intelligence, the duty to protect the defendant 

lies first and foremost with his attorney."). While defense counsel's duty to advise 

regarding immigration consequences is imposed by statute, "[r]easonable conduct 

for an attorney includes carrying out the duty to research the relevant law." State 

v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862, 215 P.3d 177 (2009) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 

690-91). In many cases2 defense counsel's failure to fulfill his or her statutory 

duty may be due to an unreasonable failure to research or apply RCW 1 0.40.200, 

and there is no conceivable tactical or strategic purpose for such a failure. 

Where an attorney unreasonably fails to research or apply relevant statutes 

without any tactical purpose, that attorney's performance is constitutionally 

deficient. See, e.g., id. at 865-69 (deficient performance where reasonably 

2

There may be situations where defense counsel's failure to provide the advice required by RCW 

10.40.200 is objectively reasonable and thus not deficient. See People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523, 

529 (Colo. 1987). And of course, even if deficient, counsel's performance is not constitutionally 

ineffective unless it is also prejudicial. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d at 862. 

9 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

adequate research would have shown that a former pattern jury instruction 

misstated the law on self-defense); State v. Aha, 137 Wn.2d 736, 745-46, 975 P.2d 

512 (1999) (deficient performance where reasonably adequate research would have 

prevented the possibility of conviction based on acts predating the relevant 

statute's effective date). Cf State v. Paredez, 2004-NMSC-036, 136 N.M. 533, 

101 P.3d 799, 805 (holding that the failure to advise a noncitizen defendant about 

immigration consequences as required by N.M. CODER. 5-303(E)(5) could be 

ineffective assistance); RPC 1.1 cmt. 2 ("Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill 

consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill 

that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge."). Indeed, "[a]n 

attorney's ignorance of a point of law that is fundamental to his case combined 

with his failure to perform basic research on that point is a quintessential example 

of unreasonable performance under Strickland." Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S._, 

134 S. Ct. 1081, 1089, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2014). The unreasonable failure to 

research and apply RCW 10.40.200 is as constitutionally deficient as the 

unreasonable failure to research and apply any relevant statute. 

This resolves Padilla's threshold question as applied to Washington law. 

Padilla thus becomes a "garden-variety application[ ] of the test in Strickland' that 

simply refines the scope of defense counsel's constitutional duties as applied to a 

specific fact pattern. Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1107. Because Padilla did not 

10 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint ofJagana, No. 89992-4 

announce a new rule under Washington law, it applies retroactively to matters on 

collateral review under Teague. 

2. Padilla effected a significant change in Washington law 

Whether a changed legal standard applies retroactively is a distinct inquiry 

from whether there has been a significant change in the law. An old rule whose 

new application significantly changes the law is unusual, but not impossible, as 

this case demonstrates. Padilla's application of the old Strickland test significantly 

changed state law by superseding Washington appellate cases that apparently 

foreclosed the possibility that defense counsel's unreasonable and prejudicial 

failure to fulfill his or her duties under RCW 10.40.200 could ever be 

constitutionally ineffective. 

(a) A "new" rule under Teague is not always the same as a 

"significant change" in the law under RCW 10.73.100(6) 

There is unquestionably a substantial overlap between "new" Teague rules 

and "significant changes" in state law, but they are two separate inquiries: "RCW 

1 0. 73.1 00( 6) sets forth three conditions that must be met before a petitioner can 

overcome the one-year time bar: (1) a [significant] change in the law (2) that is 

material and (3) that applies retroactively." In re Pers. Restraint of Gentry, 179 

Wn.2d 614, 625,316 P.3d 1020 (2014). While we have used the Teague analysis 

and its definition of a "new" rule to determine whether a constitutional rule applies 

11 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

retroactively, id. at 626, we have never imported Teague's definition of a new rule 

into our analysis of whether there has been a significant change in the law. 

In fact, we have always defined the two phrases differently. A significant 

change in state law occurs "where an intervening opinion has effectively 

overturned a prior appellate decision that was originally determinative of a material 

issue." In re Pers. Restraint of Greening, 141 Wn.2d 687, 697, 9 P.3d 206 (2000). 

By comparison, new rules for Teague purposes "are those that 'break[] new 

ground or impose[] a new obligation on the States or the Federal government 

[or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's 

conviction became final."' State v. Evans, 154 Wn.2d 438, 444, 114 P.3d 627 

(2005) (alterations in original) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301). "If before the 

opinion is announced, reasonable jurists could disagree on the rule of law, the 

opinion is new." !d. (citing Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 411, 124 S. Ct. 2504, 

159 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2004)). 

Using different definitions for a "significant change" in state law and a 

"new" rule under Teague is not only fully supported by the plain language ofRCW 

10.73.100(6) and our own precedent, it also makes good sense in light ofthe 

different purposes these phrases serve in our analysis. The "significant change" 

language is intended to reduce procedural barriers to collateral relief in the 

interests of fairness and justice. Greening, 141 Wn.2d at 697 ("While litigants 

12 
In re Pers. Restraint o.fTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint o.f.Jagana, No. 89992-4 

have a duty to raise available arguments in a timely fashion and may later be 

procedurally penalized for failing to do so ... they should not be faulted for having 

omitted arguments that were essentially unavailable at the time."). Meanwhile, 

Teague's broad definition of "new" rules that usually do not apply retroactively is 

intended to strengthen procedural barriers to collateral relief in the interests of 

finality and comity. Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264,279-81, 128 S. Ct. 

1029, 169 L. Ed. 2d 859 (2008). 

A "significant change" in state law and a "new" constitutional rule of 

criminal procedure are different phrases with different meanings that serve 

different purposes. We will not conflate them. Gentry, 179 Wn.2d at 625; cf 

Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 433-34, 995 N.E.2d 760 (2013) 

(retaining the general Teague framework but declining to adopt the expanded 

definition of a "new" rule that was articulated after Teague). 

(b) Padilla significantly changed Washington law 

It is true that in most cases simply applying the ordinary Strickland test to 

new facts will announce neither new rules nor significant changes in the law. See 

In re Pers. Restraint ofTuray, 150 Wn.2d 71, 83, 74 P.3d 1194 (2003) (Where an 

opinion "simply applies settled law to new facts, it does not constitute a significant 

change in the law."). However, Washington appellate cases issued before Padilla 

apparently foreclosed any possibility that the unreasonable, prejudicial failure to 

13 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

provide the advice required by RCW 10.40.200 could ever be ineffective assistance 

of counsel. Padilla superseded these decisions, significantly changing state law. 

The first appellate case to explicitly consider whether RCW 10.40.200 has 

any implications on the constitutional effectiveness of defense counsel is State v. 

Holley, 75 Wn. App. 191, 876 P.2d 973 (1994). In that case, the Court of Appeals 

held that a reference hearing was required to determine whether the defendant's 

guilty plea was entered in violation ofRCW 10.40.200. Id. at 200-01. Even 

though it decided the case on statutory grounds, Holley chose to address the 

constitutional implications ofRCW 10.40.200 and summarily stated in dictum that 

there were none. ld. at 196-98. To support this proposition, Holley relied on State 

v. Malik, 37 Wn. App. 414, 680 P.2d 770 (1984). Malik was based on facts 

occurring before RCW 10.40.200's effective date and so did not consider the 

impact of that statute on the duties of defense counsel. State v. Littlefair, 112 Wn. 

App. 749, 767, 51 P.3d 116 (2002). As discussed above, with the enactment of 

RCW 1 0.40.200, the unreasonable failure to research and apply that statute became 

constitutionally deficient performance. Holley's dictum was thus erroneous. 

The only decision of this court that touches on the issue presented here is In 

re Personal Restraint ofYim, 139 Wn.2d 581, 588, 989 P.2d 512 (1999). 

However, Yim dealt with a claim that the defendant received incorrect advice, 

rather than no advice, regarding immigration consequences. !d. Padilla is not 

14 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

limited to incorrect advice; it explicitly holds that providing no advice regarding 

immigration consequences is also deficient. Padilla, 559 U.S. at 370. Further, Yim 

discussed only the voluntariness of the defendant's plea without reference to the 

standard for determining ineffective assistance of counsel, and Yim did not 

consider RCW 10.40.200. Yim, 139 Wn.2d at 588-90 (citing State v. Ward, 123 

Wn.2d 488, 512-13, 869 P.2d 1062 (1994); Malik, 37 Wn. App. at 416). Yim's 

analysis does not address the issues presented where a noncitizen asserts his or her 

attorney unreasonably failed to provide any advice about the immigration 

consequences of pleading guilty as required by RCW 10.40.200. 

Nevertheless, Washington appellate courts have routinely rejected the 

possibility that such a failure could ever be ineffective assistance of counsel. Each 

of those decisions relies on cases analyzing guilty pleas entered before the 

effective date ofRCW 10.40.200, Holley's erroneous dictum, or Yim's 

distinguishable analysis. See State v. Jamison, 105 Wn. App. 572, 591-92, 595, 20 

P.3d 1010 (2001) (citing Yim, 139 Wn.2d at 588; Holley, 75 Wn. App. at 198); 

State v. Martinez-Lazo, 100 Wn. App. 869, 876-77,999 P.2d 1275 (2000) (citing 

Yim, 139 Wn.2d at 588; Holley, 75 Wn. App. at 197; In re Pers. Restraint of 

Peters, 50 Wn. App. 702, 704, 750 P.2d 643 (1988)), abrogation recognized by 

Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1109 n.8; Holley, 75 Wn. App. at 197-98 (citing Malik, 37 

Wn. App. at 416-17); Peters, 50 Wn. App. at 705 (noting the guilty plea was 

15 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint o.f.Jagana, No. 89992-4 

entered before RCW 10.40.200's effective date); see generally Littlefair, 112 Wn. 

App. at 766-69 (discussing the history ofRCW 10.40.200, Malik, and its progeny). 

Padilla superseded the theory underlying these decisions--that "anything short of 

an affirmative misrepresentation by counsel of the plea's deportation consequences 

could not support the plea's withdrawal." Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d at 170 n.1. This 

was a significant change in Washington law. 

B. Jagana is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits 

A significant, material, retroactive change in the law exempts a PRP from 

RCW 10.73.090(1)'s one-year time bar for collateral attacks. RCW 10.73.100(6). 

However, in light of the arguments currently presented for our review, only Jagana 

is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his PRP. 

J agana alleges that his trial attorney unreasonably failed to ascertain 

Jagana's immigration status and did not provide him with any guidance as to any 

possible immigration consequences of his guilty plea, and further alleges that these 

failures rendered Jagana's plea involuntary. These allegations, if true, would 

establish that Jagana did not receive effective assistance of counsel in deciding 

whether to plead guilty. As discussed above, Washington courts would have 

rejected Jagana's claim before Padilla was issued. Jagana's failure to raise this 

apparently unavailable argument cannot render his PRP procedurally barred. 

Greening, 141 Wn.2d at 697. He is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

16 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

However, Washington courts have long recognized that where a defendant 

relies on his or her attorney's incorrect advice about the immigration consequences 

of pleading guilty, the defendant's plea may be rendered involuntary and 

withdrawn. Yim, 139 Wn.2d at 588. With the assistance of an attorney, Tsai filed 

a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in 2008, alleging his guilty plea was 

involuntary because his attorney incorrectly advised him about the immigration 

consequences. The trial court denied this motion, not because it was legally 

unav·ailable on the merits, but because the trial court decided it was untimely and 

not subject to equitable tolling. Perhaps the trial court erred in 2008, but Tsai did 

not appeal that decision and neither Padilla nor Sandoval addresses equitable 

tolling. Based on the arguments currently presented for our review, Tsai has not 

shown he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his PRP. See RAP 

16.4(d); Greening, 141 Wn.2d at 697. 

CONCLUSION 

This case is not a faceless one that bears no consequences. Numerous 

noncitizen defendants have benefited from the clear statutory requirement that 

defense counsel has a duty to advise them about the immigration consequences of 

pleading guilty. However, numerous meritorious claims that defense counsel 

unreasonably failed to fulfill this duty have been rejected based on the mistaken 

belief that RCW 10.40.200 has no constitutional implications. Now that this 

17 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re .Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

mistaken belief has finally been corrected, holding such meritorious claims are 

procedurally barred would deprive many others of the opportunity to have the 

merits of their constitutional claims reviewed. In light of the legislature's longstanding commitment to ensuring noncitizen defendants understand the 

immigration consequences of conviction and this court's long-standing 

commitment to ensuring criminal defendants receive effective assistance of 

counsel, such an outcome would be unjust and fall short of the values underpinning 

our state statutory framework. 

18 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

WE CONCUR: 

19 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana 

No. 88770-5 (consolidated with No. 89992-4) 

OWENS, J. (dissenting) - In 1992, we adopted the United States Supreme 

Court's method for determining when a constitutional rule that arises out of new case 

law may apply retroactively. In re Pers. Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 326-

27, 823 P.2d 492 (1992). The Court's method comes from Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 

288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989), and under that method only 

settled constitutional rules apply retroactively. New constitutional rules of criminal 

procedure do not apply retroactively. Id. In this case, both Tsai and Jagana ask that 

we apply a constitutional rule that arose out of new case law-Padilla v. Kentucky, 

559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010)-retroactively to them. 

In Padilla, the United States Supreme Court held that if a defendant's attorney 

fails to advise the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, it 

violates the defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 374. Thus, the question under 

our retroactivity framework is whether that holding constituted a new constitutional 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

rule in Washington. To determine that, we must assess whether our courts interpreted 

the Sixth Amendment to require attorneys to advise their clients of the immigration 

consequences of pleading guilty prior to Padilla. 

As I explain below, our case law shows that prior to Padilla, Washington 

courts had held that if an attorney failed to advise his or her client of the immigration 

consequences of pleading guilty, it was not a violation of the defendant's Sixth 

Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Although some may disagree 

with those holdings, that was the law in Washington prior to Padilla. Thus, Padilla 

represented a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure in Washington. The 

United States Supreme Court came to this same conclusion when it resolved this exact 

question in the federal context. See Chaidez v. United States,_ U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 

1103, 1113, 185 L. Ed. 2d 149 (2013). Because Padilla is a new constitutional rule of 

criminal procedure, it cannot be applied retroactively to the petitioners. 

The majority avoids this result by distorting the historical scope of Washington 

constitutional law regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. The majority relies on 

a Washington statute-RCW 10.40.200-to hold that Padilla represented a settled 

constitutional rule in Washington, and that Pad ill a may therefore be applied 

retroactively. That is mystifying, as Teague requires us to determine whether a 

constitutional rule of criminal procedure is retroactive, not a statutory rule. RCW 

10.40.200 tells us nothing about how the Sixth Amendment was interpreted in 

2 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

Washington prior to Padilla. Although the majority may believe that Washington 

courts should have interpreted the Sixth Amendment to require attorneys to advise 

their clients of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty because ofRCW 

10.40.200, that was not the reality of Washington constitutional law prior to Padilla. 

It is understandable why the majority wants to avoid this difficult result, but it 

is compelled by our precedent adopting the Teague analysis. Unless and until we 

overturn our adoption of the Teague analysis, we are bound by it. Padilla represented 

a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure in Washington. Thus, it cannot be 

applied retroactively to the petitioners under Teague. I respectfully dissent. 

1. Under Teague, New Constitutional Rules of Criminal Procedure Do Not 

Apply Retroactively 

Under Teague, "[u]nless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new 

constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which 

have become final before the new rules are announced." 489 U.S. at 310. "Only 

when we apply a settled rule may a person avail herself of the decision on collateral 

review." Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1107. A rule is new '"when it breaks new ground or 

imposes a new obligation' on the government." Id. (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 

301 ). Put differently, "a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by 

precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final." Teague, 489 

U.S. at 301. 

3 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

2. As the United States Supreme Court Has Held, Padilla Was a New Rule in 

Jurisdictions (Like Washington) That Previously Held That Advice about 

Immigration Consequences Was Categorically Removed from the Scope of 

the Sixth Amendment 

Prior to Padilla, both federal courts and our courts had concluded that an 

attorney's advice about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty was 

categorically removed from the scope of the Sixth Amendment. As the United States 

Supreme Court said, state and lower federal courts had "almost unanimously 

concluded that the Sixth Amendment [did] not require attorneys to inform their clients 

of a conviction's collateral consequences, including deportation." Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. 

at 1109. Washington was one ofthose states. See State v. Martinez-Lazo, 100 Wn. 

App. 869, 876-78, 999 P.2d 1275 (2000) (holding that Martinez-Lazo did not receive 

ineffective assistance of counsel because "a defendant need not be advised of the 

possibility of deportation," which is merely a collateral consequence). The United 

States Supreme Court recently analyzed whether Padilla created a "'new rule"' under 

Teague in Chaidez. 133 S. Ct. at 1107. Because our courts' interpretation of the 

Sixth Amendment was the same as the federal courts, our Teague analysis should 

mirror the United States Supreme Court's Teague analysis in Chaidez. 

In Chaidez, Chaidez pleaded guilty to deportable offenses, but her attorney 

failed to advise her ofthe immigration consequences of pleading guilty. !d. at 1106. 

Her conviction became final in 2004. !d. In 2009, after immigration proceedings 

4 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

commenced against her, she filed a writ of coram nobis 1 in federal district court, 

arguing ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. !d. The Court 

decided Padilla while Chaidez's petition was still pending, and the Court granted her 

petition for certiorari to determine whether Padilla applied retroactively to her. Jd. at 

1106-07. 

In finding that Padilla created a new rule (and thus that it could not be applied 

retroactively), the Court's analysis hinged on the distinction between defense 

counsel's duty to inform clients about deportation consequences as a matter of 

professional competence and defense counsel's requirements under the Sixth 

Amendment. See id. at 1108. The Court noted that "had Padilla merely made clear 

that a lawyer who neglects to inform a client about the risk of deportation is 

professionally incompetent," then Padilla would not have created a new rule. !d. 

Indeed, in Padilla, the Court noted that the plea form used by Kentucky trial courts 

already "provides notice of possible immigration consequences" and that many other 

states (including Washington) "require trial courts to advise defendants of possible 

immigration consequences." 559 U.S. at 374 n.15. However, in Chaidez, the Court 

1 Chaidez filed a writ of coram nobis instead of habeas relief because she was no longer 

"'in custody"' and therefore could not seek habeas relief. Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1106 n.l 

(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2241). The Court assumed without deciding that nothing in 

the case turned "on the difference between a coram nobis petition and a habeas petition." 

!d. 

5 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

noted that "Padilla did something more." 133 S. Ct. at 1108. Padilla considered 

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." Id. 

(quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 366). In other words, Padilla broke new ground by 

determining that attorneys are required to inform their clients about the immigration 

consequences of pleading guilty under the Sixth Amendment. 

As discussed above, Washington courts, like the federal courts and many other 

state courts prior to Padilla, "concluded that the Sixth Amendment [did] not require 

attorneys to inform their clients of a conviction's collateral consequences, including 

deportation." Id. at 1109; Martinez-Lazo, 100 Wn. App. at 876-78. Only Colorado 

and New Mexico held that the Sixth Amendment required attorneys to inform their 

clients of a conviction's collateral consequences. Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1109 & n.9 

(citing People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523, 527-29 (Colo. 1987); State v. Paredez, 2004-

NMSC-036, 136 N.M. 533, 539, 101 P.3d 799). Since our courts' interpretation of 

the Sixth Amendment was the same as the federal courts, our Teague analysis here 

should mirror the United States Supreme Court's Teague analysis in Chaidez. Thus, 

like the Supreme Court, I would hold that Padilla created a new rule in Washington 

and cannot be applied retroactively under Teague. The majority's conclusion to the 

contrary is erroneously based on statutory authority, as explained below. 

6 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

3. The Majority Fundamentally Errs by Conflating Statutory and 

Constitutional Authority 

As discussed above, Washington has long required trial courts and attorneys to 

inform defendants of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty as a matter of 

practice and professional competence pursuant to a statute. However, we never 

required that practice under the Sixth Amendment until we decided State v. Sandoval, 

171 Wn.2d 163, 249 P.3d 1015 (2011), in light of Padilla. The majority 

fundamentally errs by giving a statutory attorney practice standard the same legal 

authority as a constitutional attorney practice standard for Teague retroactivity 

purposes. That is simply not correct under Teague. To determine retroactivity under 

Teague, we must assess whether a constitutional rule of criminal procedure is settled 

or new, not whether a statutory rule is settled or new. 

In 1983, our legislature passed a bill requiring that defendants be advised of 

immigration consequences before pleading guilty. LAWS OF 1983, ch. 199, § 1(2) 

(currently codified as RCW 10.40.200(2)). That being said, our courts have 

consistently held "that a deportation proceeding that occurs subsequent to the entry of 

a guilty plea is merely a collateral consequence of that plea." In re Pers. Restraint of 

Yim, 139 Wn.2d 581, 588, 989 P.2d 512 (1999). Accordingly, before Padilla and 

Sandoval, our courts had concluded that the Sixth Amendment did not require 

attorneys to inform their clients of a conviction's collateral consequences, including 

7 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

deportation. See Martinez-Lazo, 100 Wn. App. at 876-78 (holding that Martinez-Lazo 

did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because "a defendant need not be 

advised of the possibility of deportation," which is merely a collateral consequence). 

As discussed above, we did not recognize that the Sixth Amendment required 

attorneys to give competent advice about deportation consequences until Sandoval, in 

light of Padilla. See Sandoval, 171 Wn.2d at 169-71. 

The majority fundamentally errs by asserting that in 1983, "our legislature did 

what Padilla ultimately did in 201 0-it rejected the direct-versus-collateral distinction 

as applied to immigration consequences, declaring that a noncitizen defendant must be 

warned about immigration consequences before pleading guilty." Majority at 8. The 

legislature did not reject the "direct-versus-collateral distinction" in enacting what is 

now RCW 10.40.200 because it did not (and does not) have the constitutional 

authority to declare what the Sixth Amendment means for determining what 

constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel-that is our job. Marbury v. Madison, 5 

U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) ("It is, emphatically, the province and 

duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is."). Although the legislature can 

set practice standards for attorneys, only Washington courts can determine whether an 

attorney's violation of a legislative standard constitutes ineffective assistance under 

the Sixth Amendment. And in Washington, as discussed above, our courts had decided 

that an attorney failing to give advice about immigration consequences (as required by 

8 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

RCW 10.40.200) was categorically removed from the scope of the Sixth Amendment. 

Martinez-Lazo, 100 Wn. App. at 876-78. 

Despite the existence ofRCW 10.40.200(2), the Court of Appeals' decision in 

Martinez-Lazo accurately reflected the scope of Washington constitutional law prior 

to Padilla. Even Martinez-Lazo "acknowledge[ d) the general rule in Washington that 

deportation is a collateral consequence"; instead, he argued that because "his 

deportation [was] certain, [it was] therefore no longer a collateral consequence." !d. 

at 87 6-77. Martinez-Lazo' s argument eschewing the distinction between direct and 

collateral consequences in the deportation context was not recognized until Padilla 

and Sandoval. Thus, although Washington statutory law provided that attorneys were 

required to inform their clients of immigration consequences, it was not a 

constitutional requirement under our state courts' interpretation of the Sixth 

Amendment. That distinction should be dispositive of our Teague analysis-we are 

determining whether a constitutional rule of criminal procedure is retroactive, not a 

statutory rule. 

It should be evident from the majority's own citations that it has no authority to 

support its holding. The only pre-Padilla case the majority cites that actually held 

that it was ineffective assistance of counsel for an attorney to fail to advise his or her 

client of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty is from New Mexico. 

Paredez, 136 N.M. 533. As noted above, that is one of the two states the United 

9 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint of Jagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

States Supreme Court discussed in Chaidez that did not consider deportation to be a 

collateral consequence. 133 S. Ct. at 1109 & n.9. 

Thus, I would conclude that Padilla created a new rule in Washington, and I 

would therefore hold that the rule imposed by Padilla is not retroactive under Teague. 

Accordingly, I would find the petitioners' personal restraint petitions time barred. 

CONCLUSION 

I recognize that "[t]his case is not a faceless one that bears no consequences." 

Majority at 17. But we are a court of law, and we are required to faithfully apply our 

precedent. Our cases have consistently applied the Teague analysis to decide whether 

constitutional rules apply retroactively. Under a proper Teague analysis here, we do 

not look to whether our courts should have been interpreting the Sixth Amendment to 

require attorneys to inform their clients of the deportation consequences of pleading 

guilty. Rather, we must assess how our courts actually interpreted the Sixth 

Amendment and then decide whether Padilla broke new ground from our courts' prior 

approach. Prior to Padilla, our courts had concluded that the Sixth Amendment did 

not apply to an attorney's advice about the immigration consequences of pleading 

guilty. Thus, Padilla created a new rule in Washington. I would therefore hold that 

Padilla may not be applied retroactively under Teague. Accordingly, I would find 

Tsai's and Jagana's personal restraint petitions time barred and affirm the Court of 

Appeals. 

10 
In re Pers. Restraint ofTsai, No. 88770-5 

In re Pers. Restraint ofJagana, No. 89992-4 

Owens, J., Dissenting 

11