Ex Parte Edwin Mauricio Guevara, 14-14-00183-CR

Background

Edwin Mauricio Guevara, a Salvadoran national with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), pleaded guilty to possession of <1 gram of cocaine; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on two years’ community supervision with a $200 fine.
Immigration authorities later arrested Guevara, initiated removal proceedings, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services withdrew his TPS; because of the arrest he could not comply with supervision conditions.
The State moved to adjudicate guilt; the trial court revoked deferred adjudication and sentenced Guevara to six months’ confinement and a $200 fine.
Guevara filed a post-conviction habeas application claiming counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately advise him about immigration consequences of his plea under Padilla v. Kentucky; he asserted he would have gone to trial if properly advised.
Trial counsel Kimberly Samman submitted an affidavit stating she warned Guevara repeatedly about deportation risk, advised him to consult an immigration attorney (and relayed that attorney’s opinion that TPS would be affected), and admonished him at the plea hearing; the trial court found counsel credible and Guevara’s affidavit not credible.
The trial court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed, finding Guevara failed to prove prejudice under Strickland and Padilla because (1) evidence of guilt and lack of viable defenses made trial risky, (2) immigration consequences were not shown to be his primary concern, and (3) deportation risk existed whether he pled guilty or was convicted at trial.

Issues

Issue	Guevara's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise Guevara that his guilty plea would lead to loss of TPS and presumptively mandatory deportation under Padilla	Counsel failed to adequately advise about immigration consequences; Guevara would have rejected plea and insisted on trial	Counsel properly warned Guevara, advised him to consult immigration counsel, and relayed immigration advice; trial court found counsel credible	Denied — appellate court affirmed denial of habeas relief: Guevara failed to prove Strickland prejudice (rejecting plea would not have been a rational choice)

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (trial counsel must advise noncitizen of deportation consequences when those consequences are truly clear)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-pronged ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland test applied to guilty-plea context)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (validity of guilty plea turns on voluntary and intelligent choice)
Ex parte Fassi, 388 S.W.3d 881 (14th Dist. guidance on Padilla and prejudice analysis)
Ex parte Murillo, 389 S.W.3d 922 (four-factor test for Padilla/Strickland prejudice inquiry)
Ex parte Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684 (guilty plea involuntariness from ineffective assistance)
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (state need only show control/knowledge of contraband)
Ex parte Luna, 401 S.W.3d 329 (deportation can follow conviction regardless of plea or jury verdict)