All Content

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Mar 19, 2012

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Neil Amstead, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rene S. Guevera.

Attorneys 2: Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Garland Erguden, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WOODALL

Petitioner, Rene S. Guevara, pled guilty in March 1995 to the felony offense of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. A little more than fifteen years later, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking the 1995 conviction. Petitioner asserted he was entitled to relief because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise him regarding “immigration consequences of a guilty plea.” Petitioner claimed that this right was a new constitutional rule of law announced in Padilla v. Kentucky, _____ U.S. _____, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), and that this new constitutional rule of law should be retroactively applied to Petitioner’s case. The post-conviction court entered an order dismissing the petition because it was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(a), and because the rule of law was not required to be applied retroactively. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.