United States v. Hong, No. 10-6294 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Chang Hong sought a certificate of appealability from the Tenth Circuit to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief as untimely. He asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea as required by "Padilla v. Kentucky." Defendant argued "Padilla" is a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, making his motion timely. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "Padilla" is a new rule of constitutional law, but it does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. Therefore, Defendant’s motion was untimely, and the Court concluded Defendant did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s request for a COA and dismissed his appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.