Valdez anchored his arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year regarding Padilla v. Kentucky, which ruled that an attorney provides ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform a client that a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation.
Under CNMI Supreme Court rules, Naraja said a notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
In this case, the court accepted Valdez’s plea agreement in March 2001 and a sentence was imposed on June 4, 2002.
“The rule in Padilla was announced in 2010, long after [Valdez’s] conviction became final,” Naraja said.
The issue now is whether Padilla should be applied retroactively to Valdez’s case, Naraja said.
He said “Padilla is a new rule of criminal procedure and will not be retroactive unless an exception applies.”
Naraja added: “Because Padilla will not apply retroactively in this case, the court need not address whether the defendant has shown ineffective assistance of counsel.”
In his motion, Valdez said he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea “to correct the manifest injustice stemming from the ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Valdez argued that “his counsel failed to advise him of the deportation consequences prior to his entering the guilty plea.”
In 2002, Valdez was sentenced to five years imprisonment, all suspended except for six months. He has completed his sentence.
Late last year, U.S. Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings on Valdez based on this conviction.
Valdez has been married to a U.S. citizen for the past 20 years.
He is currently under the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for his removal proceedings.
Variety was told Valdez is being petitioned by his wife for a green card.
