Efrain Ledezma Martinez v. State, 07-15-00224-CR

Background

Martinez (non‑citizen) pled guilty on Feb 26, 2001 to possession of 1–4 grams of cocaine and received seven years deferred adjudication community supervision. Plea paperwork (with interpreter) included a written admonition that a plea "may result in deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization."
At the plea hearing Martinez, aided by an interpreter and on the stand, acknowledged he understood the plea papers and that a guilty plea "may result in deportation, exclusion, [or] denial of naturalization." Defense counsel also asked those immigration‑consequence questions on the record.
A motion to adjudicate was filed in 2001 but the case was dismissed and Martinez was discharged from community supervision in 2011. Martinez filed a state habeas writ on March 5, 2015 claiming ineffective assistance for failing to advise immigration consequences (Padilla claim) and asserting the court failed to admonish orally under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 23.16.
The habeas court held a hearing on April 20, 2015 and denied relief. Martinez appealed; the State filed this responsive brief arguing the denial was correct.
State’s principal arguments: (1) Padilla announced a new rule and does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla (Martinez’s conviction became final in 2001); (2) even if counsel’s advice were deficient, Martinez failed to show Strickland prejudice because he would not rationally have rejected a favorable plea that avoided incarceration; (3) any failure of the trial court to orally admonish was harmless because defendant and counsel already acknowledged immigration risks and the written admonition was signed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about deportation under Padilla	Martinez: counsel failed to advise of immigration consequences; would not have pled if properly advised	State: Padilla does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla; counsel in fact advised Martinez and plea papers warned of deportation	Trial court denied habeas; State urges affirmance (no retroactive Padilla and no deficient performance)
Whether Martinez established Strickland prejudice (would have rejected plea)	Martinez: affidavit says he would not have accepted plea if he knew immigration consequences	State: Martinez’s affidavit is self‑serving; no evidence of viable defenses; plea avoided likely incarceration and was rational to accept despite immigration risk	Trial court found no prejudice; State argues no reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial
Whether failure of court to orally admonish about immigration consequences violated art. 23.16	Martinez: court failed to give the statutory oral admonition, so plea process defective	State: Substantial compliance satisfied — defense counsel asked immigration questions on the record, defendant signed written admonition and acknowledged understanding with interpreter	State: Any omission was harmless; record shows defendant knew consequences
Whether deferred adjudication here is a conviction for immigration purposes (impacting retroactivity)	Martinez: argued Padilla should apply because adjudication was deferred (not a final conviction under state law)	State: Under federal immigration law and Texas precedent deferred adjudication with plea is a conviction for immigration purposes; Martinez’s conviction was final in 2001	Court below treated the conviction as final for Padilla/retroactivity purposes; State relies on that to deny relief

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise regarding clear, direct immigration consequences of a plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule and does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla)
Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Texas CCA declined to give Padilla retroactive effect under state habeas law)
Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (pre‑Padilla baseline that counsel need not advise on collateral consequences)
State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deferred adjudication may constitute a conviction for immigration purposes)