AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Petitioner sought to vacate his twelve-year-old misdemeanor convictions related to marijuana possession, drug paraphernalia possession, and concealing identity due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the Petitioner argued that his counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, which was required under State v. Paredez and could lead to his deportation (paras 2, 18).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Judge: Denied Petitioner's writ of coram nobis, ruling that Paredez should not be applied retroactively to collateral challenges of final judgments and sentences (para 1).
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, 2012-NMCA-057, 278 P.3d 569: Reversed the district court's decision and held that the ineffective assistance of counsel rules stated in Paredez and Padilla v. Kentucky are retroactive. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying the writ of coram nobis because his appointed counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, as required by Paredez, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 2-3).
• Respondent-Appellee (State): Contended that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief because the rule announced in Paredez does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the ineffective assistance of counsel rules stated in Paredez and Padilla v. Kentucky apply retroactively to cases on collateral review (para 4).
• Whether the Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to inform him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea (paras 2, 18).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the rules stated in Paredez and Padilla are retroactive and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring):
  The court determined that the rules stated in Paredez and Padilla, requiring counsel to inform clients of immigration consequences of guilty pleas, are not new rules but extensions of the previously established duty of effective representation under Strickland v. Washington. Therefore, they apply retroactively to cases on collateral review (paras 4-16).
  The court found that at the time of the Petitioner's conviction, the immigration consequences of his guilty plea were clear and significant, making the failure to inform him of these consequences a deficiency in representation (paras 17-19).
  The court concluded that the Petitioner had established ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice, warranting the opportunity to withdraw his plea (paras 20-22).