Ex Parte Adelio Alexander Barahona, 09-20-00192-CR

Barahona (a non‑citizen) pleaded guilty in April 2018 under a plea bargain that reduced a charged DWI to a Class B misdemeanor; plea papers contained a generic warning that non‑citizen pleas "may" have immigration consequences.
Defense counsel told the trial court he had consulted an immigration attorney and told Barahona on the record (and Barahona attested in an affidavit) that pleading guilty would not harm his Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
One month after the conviction, the federal agency denied Barahona TPS because he had two DWI convictions (1999 and 2018), making him statutorily ineligible.
Barahona filed habeas relief in 2018 (denied), refiled in 2019 (denied), obtained an order granting an out‑of‑time appeal, then timely moved for a new trial after the mandate; the habeas court denied the new‑trial motion.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the habeas record (including affidavits, plea papers, and defense counsel’s testimony) and reversed, concluding counsel gave objectively unreasonable advice about immigration consequences and Barahona was prejudiced — remanding for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel performed deficiently under Padilla by giving incorrect immigration advice	Counsel told Barahona plea would not affect TPS; advice was affirmatively incorrect given statute barring TPS for aliens with 2+ misdemeanors	Habeas court: counsel reasonably complied with standards and had consulted an immigration attorney; plea papers warned of possible immigration consequences	Court: Counsel’s advice was objectively deficient; consequences were "truly clear" and counsel’s assurances were incorrect — deficiency found
Whether Barahona showed prejudice (reasonable probability he would have gone to trial)	Barahona relied on counsel’s assurances, promptly sought relief once he learned of TPS denial, counsel considered the case defensible, and Barahona has strong U.S. ties	State: Barahona signed plea papers with admonishments and received benefits from the plea (reduced charge, lighter sentence, license consequences avoided)	Court: Viewing totality, reasonable probability existed that, but for bad advice, Barahona would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial — prejudice found; plea involuntary; new trial ordered

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (attorney must advise noncitizen of clear deportation consequences of plea)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for challenged guilty pleas)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (U.S. 2017) (deportation risk can be dispositive in showing prejudice to reject plea)
Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (factors for evaluating prejudice where immigration consequences motivated plea)
Ex parte Aguilar, 537 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (erroneous immigration advice can render plea involuntary)
U.S. v. Kayode, 777 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2014) (counsel’s duty to advise on immigration consequences is distinct from court’s plea admonitions)