(citing Tex.Code.Crim. P. art. 42.12 § 5(a)). Further, the court found the second prong was met because probation constitutes a punishment and a restraint on liberty. See id. at 1006. 21 . For a comprehensive discussion of the development of the retroactivity doctrine in the Supreme Court, see Hulin, 178 F.3d at 329-33. 22 . This argument could only possibly apply to the retroactive application of Roldan, which was a BIA decision, and not the retroactive application of Hemandez-Avalos, which is one of this court’s opinions. Consequently, this argument could benefit only Salazar-Regino and not Rangel-Rivera, who appeals only the retroactive application of Hemandez-Avalos to prevent her obtaining discretionary relief from removal. 23 . 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (<HOLDING>). 24 . 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d
holding that a decision to limit a new rule of criminal constitutional law to prospective application can be based on a balancing of the purpose of the new rule the reliance placed on the previous view of the law and the effect on the administration of justice of a retrospective application holding that simmons announced a new rule and retrospective application of the rule was barred by teague recognizing district court application of the same rule holding that reasonable reliance upon the old rule is an important factor supporting prospective application of the new rule holding that in the federal noncriminal law context a judicial decision can be applied nonretroactively if it established a new principle of law if such a limitation will avoid substantial inequitable results and if retrospective application will not retard the purpose and effect of the new rule