By Burt Rose
This is just a brief note to report that on February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of United States decided three cases involving criminal law.
In United States versus Chaidez, 2013 WL 610201, the court held that its decision in Padilla versus Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), will not apply retroactively. In Padilla, the court held that the sixth amendment requires an attorney in a criminal case to provide his client with advice about the risk of deportation that would arise from a plea of guilty. Click for Opinion.
In Johnson v. Williams, 2013 WL 610199, a federal habeas case, the court held that when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant’s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas corpus court will presume that the federal claim was in fact adjudicated on the merits. This decision applied the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 US Code section 2254(d). Click for Opinion.
Finally, the court decided the case of Henderson v. United States, 2013 WL 610203, and held that under United States v. Olano, 507 US 725 (1993), an error is “plain” within the meaning Rule 52(b) of the Federal rules of criminal procedure so long as the error was plain at the time of appellate review. In such a case, a court of appeals may consider the error even though it had not been brought to the attention of the trial court. Click for Opinion.
Good luck—Burt Rose