Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

U.S. v. Laguna

Case No. 10 CR 342 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2011)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
U.S. v. Laguna

6 Citing cases

  1. Chaidez v. U.S.

    655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011)

    Aug. 25, 2010) (same); United States v. Chavarria, 2011 WL 1336565 (N.D.Ind. April 7, 2011) (same); United States v. Laguna, 2011 WL 1357538 (N.D.Ill. April 11, 2011) ( Padilla announced a new rule); United States v. Aceves, 2011 WL 976706, at *3 (D.Hawai'i March 17, 2011) (collecting cases). The Third Circuit recently became the first of our sister circuits to weigh in, holding that Padilla simply applied the old Strickland rule, such that it is retroactively applicable on collateral review.

  2. Chaidez v. U.S.

    655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 9 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Chaidez v. United States, No. 10-3623, 2011 WL 3705173, at *8 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2011), it concluded that Padilla established a new rule, finding that the narrow definition of what constitutes an old rule in Teague "tips the scales" toward a new rule.

    Aug. 25, 2010) (same); United States v. Chavarria, 2011 WL 1336565 (N.D.Ind. April 7, 2011) (same); United States v. Laguna, 2011 WL 1357538 (N.D.Ill. April 11, 2011) ( Padilla announced a new rule); United States v. Aceves, 2011 WL 976706, at *3 (D.Hawai'i March 17, 2011) (collecting cases). The Third Circuit recently became the first of our sister circuits to weigh in, holding that Padilla simply applied the old Strickland rule, such that it is retroactively applicable on collateral review.

  3. Rodriguez v. U.S.

    CASE NO. 1:10-CV-23718-WKW [WO] (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2011)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that, after Padilla, a petitioner who had fully served her sentence was in custody because she faced deportation

    Freely allowing new rules to be applied retroactively would be akin to plotting legal frameworks on fault lines, with the inevitable earthquake disturbing the finality of convictions and swallowing the federal courts with collateral attacks any time a new rule is announced. Compare United States v. Laguna, No. 10cr342, 2011 WL 1357538, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2011) (holding that Padilla does announce a "new rule"); Dennis v. United States, No. 3:08cr889, 2011 WL 1480398, at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2011) (published) (new rule); Mendoza v. United States, No. 1:01cr214, 2011 WL 1226475, at *5 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2011) (published) (new rule); Banos v. United States, No. 1023314cv, 2011 WL 835789, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2011) (noting that Government and petitioner agreed that Padilla announced a new rule); Doan v. United States, 760 F. Supp. 2d 602, 605 (E.D. Va. 2011) (new rule); United States v. Hough, No. 2:02cr649, 2010 WL 5250996, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2010) (new rule); United States v. Perez, No. 8:02cr296, 2010 WL 4643033, at *2 (D. Neb. Nov. 9, 2010) (new rule); United States v. Gilbert, No. 2:03cr349, 2010 WL 4134286, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 19, 2010) (new rule) with United States v. Orocio, No. 10-1231, 2011 WL 2557232, at *7 (3d Cir. June 29, 2011) (published) (holding that Padilla "is an `old rule' for Teague purposes and is retroactively applic

  4. United States v. Chapa

    800 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (N.D. Ga. 2011)   Cited 2 times
    Holding defendant's conclusory allegations of prejudice did not meet his burden where he had "not offered anything beyond his bare allegations to support a finding that he was prejudiced, i.e., that he would not have pled guilty if [counsel] had not given him allegedly erroneous advice."

    District courts have split on the issue. Compare Ellis v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 4017(BMC), 2011 WL 2199538, *7–8 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2011) (holding that Padilla announced a new rule of criminal procedure, not a new rule of substantive law, and that the rule announced in Padilla falls far short of the type of watershed procedural rule that is applied retroactively on collateral review), and United States v. Laguna, No. 10 CR 342, 2011 WL 1357538, *4–6 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 11, 2011) (holding that Padilla is a new constitutional rule of procedure that cannot be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review), and Mendoza v. United States, No. 1:01cr214, 2011 WL 1226475, *4–5 (E.D.Va. Mar. 24, 2011) (same), and United States v. Hough, No. 2:02–cr–00649–WJM–1, 2010 WL 5250996, *3–4 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2010) (same), and United States v. Perez, No. 8:02CR296, 2010 WL 4643033, *2 (D.Neb. Nov. 9, 2010) (same), with Amer v. United States, No. 1:06CR118–GHD, 2011 WL 2160553, *3 (N.D.Miss. May 31, 2011) (holding that “[b]oth the language of Padilla and the application of [ T ] eague's test indicate that the Padilla hol[ ]ding should apply retroactively”), and Marroquin v. United States, No. M–10–156, 2011 WL 488985, *2 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 4, 2011) (holding that Padilla is not a new rule and applies retroactively), and Martin v. United States, No. 09–1387, 2010 WL 3463949, *3 (C.D.Ill. Aug. 25, 2010) (same), and United States v. Chaidez, 730 F.Supp.2d 896, 900–01 (N.D.Ill.2010

  5. Commonwealth v. Abraham

    62 A.3d 343 (Pa. 2012)   Cited 33 times
    Ruling that collateral consequence doctrine still applies outside of deportation and concluding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise his client about the loss of a pension as a result of his convictions, but not holding that ineffectiveness claim was non-cognizable

    The district courts that have addressed the issue are split. See United States v. Diaz–Palmerin, 2011 WL 1337326, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37151 (N.D. Ill. filed April 5, 2011)( Padilla did not announce new rule); Martin v. United States, 2010 WL 3463949, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87706 (C.D. Ill. filed Aug. 25, 2010) (same); United States v. Chavarria, 2011 WL 1336565, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38203 (N.D. Ind. filed April 7, 2011) (same); United States v. Laguna, 2011 WL 1357538, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38856 (N.D. Ill. filed April 11, 2011)( Padilla announced new rule); United States v. Aceves, 2011 WL 976706, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27813 (D. Hawaii filed March 17, 2011) (collecting cases). The United States Supreme Court heard argument in Chaidez November 1, 2012, on the issue of Padilla's retroactivity.

  6. Commonwealth v. Abraham

    No. J-32-2011 (Pa. Dec. 7, 2012)

    The district courts that have addressed the issue are split. See United States v. Diaz-Palmerin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37151 (N.D. Ill. filed April 5, 2011) (Padilla did not announce new rule); Martin v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87706 (C.D. Ill. filed Aug. 25, 2010) (same); United States v. Chavarria, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38203 (N.D. Ind. filed April 7, 2011) (same); United States v. Laguna, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38856 (N.D. Ill. filed April 11, 2011) (Padilla announced new rule); United States v. Aceves, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27813 (D. Hawaii filed March 17, 2011) (collecting cases). The United States Supreme Court heard argument in Chaidez November 1, 2012, on the issue of Padilla's retroactivity.