Ex Parte De Los Reyes, 350 S.W.3d 723

Appellant Joel De Los Reyes, a permanent resident, pled guilty to 2004 misdemeanor theft and was sentenced to one day in jail plus a fine.
He was later taken into federal custody in 2010; he sought habeas relief in Texas claiming his 2004 plea was involuntary due to counsel's failure to inform him of potential deportation.
Appellant submitted affidavits from himself and his counsel; Padilla v. Kentucky was cited as a potential basis for relief.
Trial counsel admitted he did not advise on immigration consequences and later concluded deportation was likely due to two theft convictions; the written admonishment on the plea occurred but was not deemed sufficient to cure the deficiency.
The trial court denied relief, citing Padilla as non-applicable due to timing and relying on the plea admonishments; the court recognized jurisdictional questions but proceeded to ruling.
On appeal, the State challenged jurisdiction; the court held jurisdiction existed to consider a habeas petition seeking relief from a state conviction, despite federal custody, and ultimately sustained Appellant’s argument and granted relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Padilla retroactivity under Teague	Padilla is retroactive as a non-new rule under Teague.	Padilla not retroactive due to Teague limits on new rules.	Padilla can be applied in post-conviction habeas corpus.
Ineffective assistance of counsel for immigration consequences	Counsel's failure to inform about deportation risks constitutes deficient performance under Strickland.	Information was not provided by counsel, but could be cured by written admonishments; no prejudice shown.	Deficient performance established; prejudice shown; relief granted.
Prejudice under Strickland in Padilla context	But-for counsel’s failure, Reyes would not have pled guilty.	Unclear whether prejudice is shown given plea considerations.	There is reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice established.
Subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court	State lacked jurisdiction to grant relief since Reyes was in federal custody.	Trial court has jurisdiction to consider relief for a state conviction; federal custody does not foreclose habeas relief.	Trial court had jurisdiction; cross-issue overruled.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen of deportation risk; not a )
In re State, 304 S.W.3d 581 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010) (state court may consider relief regarding state conviction despite federal custody)
Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (burden of proof in habeas corpus relief)
Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (habeas review standards and deference to trial court findings)
Ex parte Lave, 257 S.W.3d 235 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (Teague retroactivity framework in Texas habeas corpus)