Whether the Padilla decision has retroactive effect

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether the United States Supreme Court decision recognizing ineffective assistance of counsel claims for criminal defense counsel’s failure to advise or to misadvise a defendant of immigration consequences of a plea announced a constitutional right that changed Pennsylvania law after Defendant’s conviction was final and has retroactive effect. . The Trial Court determined that Defendant’s claims were not based on a “new” right recognized to be retroactive and, therefore, Defendant’s claims were not within the time limit exceptions of the PCRA statute. IE. Whether Defendant should be entitled to establish equitable tolling of the 60 day requirement of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(2) or the sixty-days should run from the affirmation of retroactivity. The Trial Court did not specifically address tolling but did hold that the sixty day time limit applied to Defendant from the publication of Padilla not from interpretive decisions regarding retroactivity. Ill. Whether Defendant’s claims fall under habeas corpus relief that is outside of the ‘ PCRA statute and its time limits. This issue was not posed directly to the Trial Court, however, the Trial Court implicitly ruled that Defendant’s claims were controlled by the PCRA statute and were subject to its time limitations. eo {i