Guardado v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Tapia v. State

    No. 2428 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 5, 2019)

    Appellant asserted that due to his attorney's error, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and since Denisyuk v. State held that Padilla applied retroactively, he is entitled to coram nobis relief, pursuant to the Padilla decision. In a written opinion dated August 21, 2018, the circuit court denied Appellant's coram nobis petition, finding that based on the binding precedent set forth by the Court of Special Appeals in Guardado v. State, 218 Md. App. 640 (2014), Padilla does not apply retroactively to Appellant's guilty plea, as his plea took place seven years before the Padilla decision. The circuit court addressed the fact that just as the Court had found in Guardado, where the judge advised the defendant about immigration consequences of a guilty plea, the circuit court judge had also informed Appellant of these potential penalties, and he still plead guilty. The circuit court further reasoned that because there was no state law violation applicable to Appellant's writ of error coram nobis, the court could not grant the Appellant's petition.

  2. Sall v. State

    No. 0309-2021 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 1, 2022)

    Following the decision in Miller, this Court applied Miller and denied retroactive application of Padilla to a guilty plea that was entered in 2008-before Padilla was decided. Guardado v. State, 218 Md.App. 640, 653 (2014) ("The circuit court did not err in denying Guardado's petition for a writ of error coram nobis because the linchpin of his contentions, namely, that Padilla applied retroactively to his case, was incorrect."). 10

  3. Karimi v. State

    No. 2248 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 18, 2015)

    See Miller, supra, 435 Md. at 198-200. See also Guardado v. State, 218 Md. App. 640, 653 (2014) ("The circuit court did not err in denying Guardado's petition for a writ of error coram nobis because the linchpin of his contentions, namely, that Padilla applied retroactively to his case, was incorrect."). This is true regardless of whether the claim of error is styled as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim or as an involuntary plea claim.

  4. Griffin v. State

    242 Md. App. 432 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times
    In Griffin the petitioner claimed to have discovered that in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Baltimore City Police Department had withheld exculpatory information at the 1982 trial at which he was convicted of first-degree murder.

    See, e.g ., Jones v. State , 445 Md. 324, 330, 126 A.3d 1162 (2015) ; Coleman v. State , 219 Md. App. 339, 347, 100 A.3d 1234 (2014), cert. denied , 441 Md. 667, 109 A.3d 666 (2015) ; Graves v. State , 215 Md. App. 339, 345, 81 A.3d 516 (2013), cert. dismissed , 441 Md. 61, 105 A.3d 489 (2014) ; State v. Castellon-Gutierrez , 198 Md. App. 633, 637, 18 A.3d 968 (2011) ; Gross v. State , 186 Md. App. 320, 323, 973 A.2d 895, cert. denied , 410 Md. 560, 979 A.2d 708 (2009) ; Abrams v. State , 176 Md. App. 600, 606, 933 A.2d 887 (2007) ; Parker v. State , 160 Md. App. 672, 687-88, 866 A.2d 885 (2005) ; Pitt v. State , 144 Md. App. 49, 52, 796 A.2d 129, cert. denied , 369 Md. 660, 802 A.2d 439 (2002) ; State v. Hicks , 139 Md. App. 1, 5, 773 A.2d 1056 (2001).See, e.g ., Smith , 443 Md. at 584-85, 117 A.3d 1093 ; Miller v. State , 435 Md. 174, 179-80, 77 A.3d 1030 (2013) ; Rivera v. State , 409 Md. 176, 193, 973 A.2d 218 (2009) ; Guardado v. State , 218 Md. App. 640, 642-43, 98 A.3d 415 (2014). In Fleming v. United States , 146 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was tasked with determining whether Fleming suffered "a continuing legal consequence of his conviction because he [was] ‘disabled from employment in a variety of financial jobs.’ "

  5. Charles v. State

    No. 1994 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 1, 2019)

    We affirm because we are convinced that the circuit court correctly denied relief, even though our reasons for that result may differ. See Guardado v. State, 218 Md. App. 640, 641 (2014) ("We are satisfied that the circuit court reached the correct result [in denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis]. Therefore, we will affirm its judgment, although our reasoning differs from that of the court.") (citing Offutt v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 285 Md. 557, 564 n. 4 (1979) ("[A]n appellate court may affirm a trial court's decision on any ground adequately shown by the record."))

  6. Chumak v. State

    No. 1356 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 22, 2017)

    See, e.g., Jones, 445 Md. at 332 (enhanced sentences); Coleman, 219 Md. App. at 348 (same); Graves v. State, 215 Md. App. 339, 345 (2013) (same); State v. Castellon-Gutierrez, 198 Md. App. 633, 637 (2011) (same); Gross v. State, 186 Md. App. 320, 323 (2009) (same); Abrams v. State, 176 Md. App. 600, 606 (2007) (same); Parker v. State, 160 Md. App. 672, 687-88 (2005) (same); Pitt, 144 Md. App. at 52 (same); State v. Hicks, 139 Md. App. 1, 5 (2001) (same). See, e.g., Smith, 443 Md. at 584-85 (removal proceedings); Miller v. State, 435 Md. 174, 179-80 (2013) (same); Rivera v. State, 409 Md. 176, 193 (2009) (same); Guardado v. State, 218 Md. App. 640, 642-43 (2014) (same). Here, in his brief, appellant proffers his collateral consequences as follows:

  7. Sanmartin Prado v. State

    225 Md. App. 201 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Padilla involves a petitioner who pled guilty to a charge, as do many cases arising from Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims for subsequent deportation proceedings following criminal convictions. E.g., Denisyuk v. State, 422 Md. 462, 30 A.3d 914 (2011) ; Guardado v. State, 218 Md.App. 640, 98 A.3d 415 (2014).Sanmartin Prado's case involves a not guilty plea to an agreed statement of facts.