Justice Richard Weinberg
Diaz was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for five year probation. Yet, he failed to appear for sentencing and a bench warrant was issued. More than five years later, Diaz now moved to withdraw his 2007 guilty plea arguing it was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary as he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his attorney failed to advise him of deportation consequences of pleading guilty, asserting he was prejudiced by this failure as he faced deportation proceedings. He argued Padilla v. Kentucky applied retroactively to his case as it was "not final on direct review." The court disagreed finding Diaz's argument overlooked the fact the case was not final before the Padilla ruling due to his own wrongful conduct of absconding. It stated to apply the Padilla standard to Diaz's case would be to reward him for his own misconduct, which the court refused to do. The court ruled Diaz, by his own wrongdoing, forfeited the right to any retroactive application of Padilla based on the fact his case was not yet final on direct review. It also found deportation proceedings were based solely on Diaz's status as a person who illegally entered the country, denying the motion.
