"The United States Supreme Court held in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 ) that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise their noncitizen clients about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. The Court subsequently held in Chaidez v United States (568 US __, 133 S Ct 1103 ) that Padilla did not apply retroactively in federal collateral review. The issue in this appeal is whether, pursuant to federal or state retroactivity principles, Padilla nonetheless applies retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the Appellate Division." - People v. Baret, June 30, 2014.
"A guilty plea by a noncitizen defendant is not knowing and voluntary where the defendant entered the plea unaware that it carried a substantial risk of deportation. This is the case regardless of whether the defendant entered the plea before or after the Supreme Court decided Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 ). As a matter of fundamental fairness, Padilla must be applied retroactively. The majority declines to do so, in large part, because for many years courts around the country failed to recognize defense attorneys' obligation to inform noncitizen defendants of the deportation consequences of their pleas. That courts previously fell short in protecting the rights of noncitizens, however, hardly justifies refusing to protect their rights now. I therefore dissent. ... Padilla expresses a rule of fundamental fairness. Whether that rule should be given retroactive effect implicates basic questions of humanity and justice. This is not a matter to be treated as a sterile question of legal doctrine." - LIPPMAN, Chief Judge (dissenting)
"Retroactive application of Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 346 ) to collateral review of criminal convictions would ensure the essential fairness of our criminal justice system and the just treatment of defendants, regardless of immigration status. Unlike the majority, I believe that Padilla did not announce a new rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure. Instead, as clearly explained by the dissent in Chaidez v United States (133 S Ct 1103, 1114 [2013, Sotomayor, J., dissenting]), Padilla applied the well-established standard of Strickland v Washington (466 US 668 ) to determine that a criminal defense lawyer is constitutionally ineffective when that lawyer fails to inform a client of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. The professional norms in New York State have recognized this defense obligation for decades. Therefore, I conclude that Padilla should apply retroactively when a defendant seeks collateral review of a state conviction in state court. I dissent." - RIVERA, J. (dissenting)