Ex Parte Ana Mar Landini
11-16-00080-CR
Tex. App.Oct 27, 2016Background
- Landini, a Mexican citizen, pleaded no contest in 2012 to possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed her on 7 years' community supervision with a $1,000 fine.
- Immigration law treats her deferred adjudication as a conviction for deportation purposes, and the federal statute makes her offense deportable.
- Landini filed an Article 11.072 habeas application claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky — her lawyer allegedly misadvised her about deportation risk, and she would have proceeded to trial if properly advised.
- The trial court denied relief without a hearing after reviewing the plea transcript and file; the record shows the court admonished Landini that the plea would result in deportation and Landini acknowledged understanding and chose to plead.
- The record reflects extensive seized contraband (large amounts of methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana), firearms, cash, and possible Mexican Mafia connections; the State reduced charges pursuant to the plea bargain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misadvising about deportation under Padilla | Landini: counsel said deportation was only a possibility; had she been properly advised she would have gone to trial | State/Trial Court: plea transcript and counsel statements show counsel discussed deportation; court admonished applicant that deportation would result and applicant acknowledged understanding | Denied — court found Landini failed to prove prejudice (would not have rationally rejected plea) |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must inform client when a plea carries a risk of deportation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice inquiry for guilty-plea challenges focuses on whether petitioner would have insisted on trial)
- Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (trial court is sole factfinder on Article 11.072; appellate deference to trial findings)
- State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deferred adjudication can constitute a conviction for immigration purposes)
- United States v. Kayode, 777 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2014) (factors relevant to Padilla prejudice inquiry)