Opinion ID: 2799305
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Muhammadou Jagana

Text: 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 ofJagana, 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 ofJagana, No. 89992-4 new rule that does not apply retroactively to matters on collateral review. In re Pers. Restraint ofJagana, 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 ofJagana, 180 Wn.2d 1014,327 P.3d 55 (2014).