Justice Richard Weinberg
Baboocall, charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and sentenced to five years probation. He sought relief under Criminal Practice Law §440.10, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under the Padilla v. Kentucky standards. Baboocall argued his attorney failed to advise him of immigration consequences of his plea, thus he was prejudiced by such failure as he now faced removal proceedings resulting from his conviction. The court noted Padilla did not apply to collateral challenges to convictions which became final prior to the Padilla decision, nor did it have retroactive effect under Teague v. Lane. Defense counsel argued this court should not be limited by a Teague analysis, and should provide a retroactive state remedy for Padilla claims citing Danforth v. Minnesota. The court disagreed, and also, stated, contrary to Baboocall's assertion, there was nothing in this case which would put it outside the ambit of Padilla as it presented a "pure Padilla situation," and the court was bound by the holdings of Chaidez v. United States, and People v. Verdejo that Padilla did not have retroactive effect. As counsel's performance at the time of the plea comported with the then prevailing professional norms, Baboocall's motion to vacate was denied.
