Luna v. Texas

Issue: (1) Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in applying Teague v. Lane without engaging in a proper analysis as to whether the constitutional right recognized in Padilla v. Kentucky was a watershed rule of criminal procedure, and by not recognizing that Padilla applies to affirmative misadvice as well as no advice, while the no retroactive application of Chaidez v. United States only applies to the “no advice” part of Padilla; (2) whether pursuant to the clearly established precedent of Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler, the Texas Court of Appeals erred in applying the “new rule v. old rule” threshold question of Teague to an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim that is the functional equivalent of a direct appeal; and (3) whether the court of appeals, in not applying the Texas definition of final conviction but rather the definition of “conviction” in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A), has avoided following the requirements of Padilla v. Kentucky in violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.