United States v. Chang Hong

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Padilla announced a new rule of constitutional law and thus does not apply retroactively
• holding that an appeal from the denial of habeas relief related to a drug conviction was not moot upon the defendant’s deportation because the conviction rendered the defendant “ineligible to receive a visa or for admission to the United States”
• taking “the concurrence and dissent as support for our conclusion that reasonable jurists did not find the rule in Padilla compelled or dictated by the Court’s prior precedent”
• “Padilla extended the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel and applied it to an aspect of a plea bargain previously untouched by Strickland,.”
• “The Teague framework exists to promote the finality of convictions by shielding them from collateral attacks mounted on new procedural rules of constitutional law.”
• “We disagree [with Orocio] and believe Padilla marked a dramatic shift when it applied Strickland to collateral civil consequences of a line courts had never crossed before.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).