Opinion issued July 29, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00146-CR ——————————— EX PARTE AURELIO COLIN VERA
On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 50798-1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aurelio Colin Vera appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 Vera contends that his trial counsel, Zachary Maloney, rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel in the year 2006 when he was purportedly
affirmatively misadvised of the immigration consequences of his plea of no
contest. We hold that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), does not apply
retroactively to this case, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
On April 20, 2006, Vera pleaded guilty to a felony offense of possession of a
controlled substance, namely cocaine, and received 2 years deferred adjudication,
court costs of $273.00 and a fine of $500.00.
Six years later, on December 20, 2013, Vera filed his application for writ of
habeas corpus. Vera contended that his guilty plea was involuntary, asserting that
Padilla applied retroactively and that his trial counsel was ineffective under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), because he did not correctly advise
Vera of the immigration consequences of his plea. Earlier in 2013, the United
States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
1103 (2013) and the Court of Criminal Appeals issued Ex Parte De Los Reyes, 392
S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), both holding Padilla does not apply
retroactively.
1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072, § 8 (West 2005) (providing for appeal in felony or misdemeanor case in which applicant seeks relief from order or judgment of conviction ordering community supervision). 2 Analysis
A. Standard of review
We review a trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief for an abuse of
discretion. Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Ex
parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317, 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Ex parte Necessary,
333 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In
conducting our review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s ruling. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We
review questions of law de novo. Ex parte Necessary, 333 S.W.3d at 787. Vera
had the burden to prove his claims for habeas relief by a preponderance of the
evidence. See State v. Webb, 244 S.W.3d 543, 547 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007, no pet.).
B. Under controlling law, no basis exists to establish that the trial court abused its discretion
Vera contends that his trial counsel’s representation was constitutionally
deficient because he did not specifically advise Vera that he would be subject to
deportation. Acknowledging that Padilla does not apply retroactively, Vera urges
us to make an independent determination that defendants like Vera deserve the
same protections as Mr. Padilla and conclude that his plea was involuntary.
In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a
criminal defendant’s attorney to provide advice about the risk of deportation
3 arising from a guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. at 1486. The Court held that
“longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a
consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on
families living lawfully in this country” demanded that counsel “inform [his] client
whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.” Id. at 1486. When the deportation
consequence is “truly clear,” counsel’s duty is to warn a defendant that he would
be deported. Id. at 1483. When the consequences are “not succinct and
straightforward,” counsel “need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that
pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.”
Id.
Nearly three years later, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of Padilla’s
retroactive application and had to decide whether Padilla announced a “new rule”
because “[o]nly when [the Supreme Court] appl[ies] a settled ruled may a person
avail herself of the decision on collateral review.” Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1107. The
Court rejected the argument that Padilla applied the settled law of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Id. at 1108–09 (referencing well known standard in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)). The Court held
that Padilla announced a new rule of constitutional criminal procedure and, thus,
did not apply retroactively to cases already final. Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1113; see
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1075 (1989) (“Unless they fall
4 within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal
procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the
new rules are announced.”).
Shortly after Chaidez, the Court of Criminal Appeals adopted Chaidez’s
reasoning: “We adhere to the retroactivity analysis in Chaidez and its holding that
Padilla does not apply retroactively.” Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d at 679.
The Court recognized that it “could accord retroactive effect to Padilla as a matter
of state habeas law” but “decline[d] to do so.” Id. The Court held that the
applicant, whose conviction was final before Padilla, could not rely on it to argue
that he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.
As an intermediate court of appeals, we are bound to follow De Los Reyes.
See Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49, 53 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet.
ref’d) (citing Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d)); see TEX. CONST. art. V, § 5(a). And, this Court has held
that, because Padilla announced a “new rule,” it does not apply retroactively. See
Ibarra v. State, No. 01-12-00292-CR, 2013 WL 1163967, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, no pet.) (concluding that appellant who was
convicted twelve years before Padilla could not rely on it on collateral review and
affirming denial of habeas relief). Because Vera’s conviction became final before
5 Padilla was decided, he may not avail himself of the decision on collateral review.
Under applicable pre-Padilla law, “while the Sixth Amendment assures an
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion issued July 29, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00146-CR ——————————— EX PARTE AURELIO COLIN VERA
On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 50798-1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Aurelio Colin Vera appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 Vera contends that his trial counsel, Zachary Maloney, rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel in the year 2006 when he was purportedly
affirmatively misadvised of the immigration consequences of his plea of no
contest. We hold that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), does not apply
retroactively to this case, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
On April 20, 2006, Vera pleaded guilty to a felony offense of possession of a
controlled substance, namely cocaine, and received 2 years deferred adjudication,
court costs of $273.00 and a fine of $500.00.
Six years later, on December 20, 2013, Vera filed his application for writ of
habeas corpus. Vera contended that his guilty plea was involuntary, asserting that
Padilla applied retroactively and that his trial counsel was ineffective under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), because he did not correctly advise
Vera of the immigration consequences of his plea. Earlier in 2013, the United
States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
1103 (2013) and the Court of Criminal Appeals issued Ex Parte De Los Reyes, 392
S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), both holding Padilla does not apply
retroactively.
1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072, § 8 (West 2005) (providing for appeal in felony or misdemeanor case in which applicant seeks relief from order or judgment of conviction ordering community supervision). 2 Analysis
A. Standard of review
We review a trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief for an abuse of
discretion. Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Ex
parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317, 326 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Ex parte Necessary,
333 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In
conducting our review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s ruling. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We
review questions of law de novo. Ex parte Necessary, 333 S.W.3d at 787. Vera
had the burden to prove his claims for habeas relief by a preponderance of the
evidence. See State v. Webb, 244 S.W.3d 543, 547 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007, no pet.).
B. Under controlling law, no basis exists to establish that the trial court abused its discretion
Vera contends that his trial counsel’s representation was constitutionally
deficient because he did not specifically advise Vera that he would be subject to
deportation. Acknowledging that Padilla does not apply retroactively, Vera urges
us to make an independent determination that defendants like Vera deserve the
same protections as Mr. Padilla and conclude that his plea was involuntary.
In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a
criminal defendant’s attorney to provide advice about the risk of deportation
3 arising from a guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. at 1486. The Court held that
“longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a
consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on
families living lawfully in this country” demanded that counsel “inform [his] client
whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.” Id. at 1486. When the deportation
consequence is “truly clear,” counsel’s duty is to warn a defendant that he would
be deported. Id. at 1483. When the consequences are “not succinct and
straightforward,” counsel “need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that
pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.”
Id.
Nearly three years later, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of Padilla’s
retroactive application and had to decide whether Padilla announced a “new rule”
because “[o]nly when [the Supreme Court] appl[ies] a settled ruled may a person
avail herself of the decision on collateral review.” Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1107. The
Court rejected the argument that Padilla applied the settled law of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Id. at 1108–09 (referencing well known standard in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)). The Court held
that Padilla announced a new rule of constitutional criminal procedure and, thus,
did not apply retroactively to cases already final. Chaidez, 133 S. Ct. at 1113; see
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1075 (1989) (“Unless they fall
4 within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal
procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the
new rules are announced.”).
Shortly after Chaidez, the Court of Criminal Appeals adopted Chaidez’s
reasoning: “We adhere to the retroactivity analysis in Chaidez and its holding that
Padilla does not apply retroactively.” Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d at 679.
The Court recognized that it “could accord retroactive effect to Padilla as a matter
of state habeas law” but “decline[d] to do so.” Id. The Court held that the
applicant, whose conviction was final before Padilla, could not rely on it to argue
that he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.
As an intermediate court of appeals, we are bound to follow De Los Reyes.
See Ervin v. State, 331 S.W.3d 49, 53 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet.
ref’d) (citing Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d)); see TEX. CONST. art. V, § 5(a). And, this Court has held
that, because Padilla announced a “new rule,” it does not apply retroactively. See
Ibarra v. State, No. 01-12-00292-CR, 2013 WL 1163967, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, no pet.) (concluding that appellant who was
convicted twelve years before Padilla could not rely on it on collateral review and
affirming denial of habeas relief). Because Vera’s conviction became final before
5 Padilla was decided, he may not avail himself of the decision on collateral review.
Under applicable pre-Padilla law, “while the Sixth Amendment assures an
accused of effective assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions, [it] does not
extend to ‘collateral’ aspects of the prosecution.” Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d
530, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Immigration consequences of a guilty plea were
considered a collateral matter and did not support an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. See State v. Jimenez, 987 S.W.2d 886, 888–89 (Tex. Crim. App.
1999) (“That a guilty plea may result in deportation is generally considered a
collateral consequence.”); see Ex parte Luna, 401 S.W.3d 329, 334 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“Immigration consequences of a guilty plea
are considered collateral; therefore, [applicant’s] plea would not be rendered
involuntary under the United States or Texas Constitutions even if his attorney was
deficient in informing him of the consequences.”).
Vera was convicted in 2006, four years before Padilla was decided. Because
Padilla announced a “new rule,” it is not retroactive and Vera may not rely on the
decision to argue that his counsel was ineffective. Before Padilla, immigration
consequences of a guilty plea were considered a collateral matter that did not
support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Vera does not argue that his that
his counsel was ineffective on any basis other than a failure to advise Vera
6 properly on the immigration consequences of his plea. He presents no basis for an
independent determination that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his
petition for writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion and overrule Vera’s issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Harvey Brown Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).