It does not look like there has been any movement on the last Padilla thread in a few months, so I'll kick the tires this morning. So unless SCOTUS takes up the retroactivity issue at the beginning of the term or somehow the CCA figures out a way to resolve Tanklevskaya and others very quickly, right now this whole thing is still just a mess. I have one that is going to be due at the 1st COA pretty soon. How is everyone else arguing these at this point? Any ideas or pearls of wisdom on a Friday?

The model brief I currently use is attached. You may also want to read the brief filed by the Solicitor General in Chaidez. Chaidez Brief

None of this will change your assessment of the situation as a mess.

Padilla_Response.pdf (232 Kb, 32 downloads) Padilla Writ Response

Thank you Martin. I hope everyone else that has one of these sitting on their desk right now will take advantage of your post.

Yes, it's a mess. Basically right now we're just arguing that it shouldn't be retroactive and seeing what happens. Given that both the Supremes and the CCA have taken up the issue, I have a feeling the lower courts will be trying to sit on the issue for a while.

The 1st COA set Gomez v. State for an accelerated appeal and my brief is due on 1/18. I don't know if this means we are going to be any closer to a resolution on this issue or not, but I'll make sure to report back whatever the result.