Benito Elizondo-Vasquez v. State, 361 S.W.3d 120

Vasquez was charged with possession of 194 pounds of marihuana, within a 50–2,000 pound range for a second-degree felony.
Plea of guilty entered under a plea bargain; State recommended a twelve-year sentence; trial court in Bell County.
Vasquez is a Mexican citizen lawfully residing in Texas; immigration consequences were discussed at proceedings.
At a motion-for-new-trial hearing, trial counsel testified he advised possible impact on immigration but did not research deportation law and did not definitively warn of deportation; counsel suggested consulting an immigration attorney.
Vasquez testified he relied on counsel’s assurances of probation and that deportation was unlikely; he would not have pled guilty had he known deportation would be virtually certain.
The court applied Strickland and Padilla to find deficient performance and that the guilty plea was involuntary; case reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did counsel's failure to warn about deportation render the plea involuntary?	Vasquez would not have plead guilty if properly advised.	Counsel's failure to guarantee deportation certainty does not negate voluntariness; Padilla applies only in clear cases.	Yes; plea involuntary; ineffective assistance under Padilla/Strickland.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (guilty-plea voluntariness standard under Strickland)
Ex parte Pool, 738 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (Strickland applies to guilty pleas in Texas)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (counsel must give correct deportation advice when the consequence is clear)
Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Strickland prejudice standard applied to Texas criminal cases)
Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (plea voluntariness assessment under Strickland)