Ex Parte Jaime Alexander Blanco
01-17-00383-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Jaime A. Blanco, an El Salvador native and lawful permanent resident since 1992, pleaded guilty in 1996 to burglary of a habitation and received 10 years' probation; probation was revoked in 2000 and he was sentenced to 4 years' confinement.
- Blanco did not appeal the 2000 conviction; his conviction became final.
- In 2016 Blanco filed an Article 11.072 habeas application claiming his 1996 plea was involuntary because trial counsel failed to advise him of immigration/deportation consequences.
- Trial counsel testified she would have given immigration admonishments as a matter of practice and that Blanco initialed plea paperwork advising of possible immigration consequences; the habeas court found her testimony credible.
- The habeas court denied relief, finding (among other things) Padilla v. Kentucky announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively to convictions final before Padilla, and alternatively that laches barred relief. The First Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising Blanco of immigration consequences of his 1996 plea | Blanco: even pre-Padilla counsel should have warned him; plea involuntary | State: at time of plea immigration consequences were collateral; no constitutional duty pre-Padilla; counsel credibly testified she gave admonitions | Court held: No relief — Padilla is not retroactive to convictions final before 2010, so no constitutional entitlement to such advice for Blanco |
| Whether Padilla applies retroactively | Blanco: seeks relief based on Padilla principle | State: Padilla is a new procedural rule that does not apply retroactively | Held: Padilla does not apply retroactively (Chaidez controlling); pre-Padilla law governs |
| Whether Blanco proved prejudice under Strickland/Hill standard | Blanco: would have rejected plea and gone to trial if warned | State: Blanco failed to show reasonable probability that rejecting plea would be rational; counsel testimony and plea paperwork negate claim | Held: Prejudice not established; petitioner did not meet Strickland/Hill burden |
| Whether laches barred relief | Blanco: delay excused or justified | State: 20-year delay prejudiced State and counsel's recollection; no compelling excuse shown | Held: Habeas court alternatively found laches barred relief (appellate court affirmed without relying on laches) |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires advising noncitizen of deportation risk when plea is entered)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule that is not retroactive to convictions already final)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in guilty-plea context)
- State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Padilla does not entitle relief for convictions final before Padilla)
- Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (same)
- State v. Jimenez, 987 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (immigration consequences generally collateral to a guilty plea)
- Ex parte Luna, 401 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (applying pre-Padilla collateral-consequences rule)