Chaidez v. United States
United States Supreme Court
133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013)
- Written by Noah Lewis, JD
Facts
Roselva Chaidez (plaintiff) was a lawful permanent resident since 1977. In 2004, Chaidez committed insurance fraud and pleaded guilty to mail fraud, a felony subjecting her to mandatory deportation. Chaidez’s attorney did not inform her of the immigration consequences of her plea, and when she applied for citizenship in 2009, immigration officials initiated removal proceedings. Chaidez collaterally attacked her criminal conviction by filing a petition for a writ of coram nobis. Chaidez argued ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment due to her attorney’s failure to inform her of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. While Chaidez’s case was pending, the Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky that under the Sixth Amendment, criminal defense attorneys must provide noncitizen clients advice about the risk of deportation from a guilty plea. The district court applied Padilla, vacating Chaidez’s conviction on the basis that her counsel was deficient. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Padilla was a new rule that could not be used to vacate a prior conviction. To address a circuit split, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)
Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
