Ex Parte Jorge Palacios Garza, 13-16-00410-CR

In 2007 police entered a garage shared by Jorge Palacios Garza and his then-wife Guillermina (who consented) to retrieve guns; officers observed marijuana, cocaine, and paraphernalia in plain view and seized guns. A surveillance video recorded officers carrying guns away.
Garza was charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine (first-degree felony) and possession of marijuana (state jail felony).
On counsel's advice Garza pled guilty to the marijuana charge; the State dismissed the controlled-substance count; sentence was 180 days suspended and two years’ community supervision.
Trial counsel did not file a motion to suppress the search or present the surveillance video and did not raise a potential conflict concerning Detective Mario Cavazos (Guillermina’s brother).
Nearly eight years later Garza filed an art. 11.072 habeas application claiming ineffective assistance (failure to suppress, plea recommendation before suppression, failure to present video, failure to raise conflict). The habeas court denied relief; this appeal follows.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Garza)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Failure to file motion to suppress	Guillermina lacked authority to consent to garage search, so suppression would have succeeded	Wife can consent to search of marital premises; suppression unlikely to succeed	Court: Counsel not ineffective; suppression would likely fail; consent valid
2. Counsel recommended guilty plea before pursuing suppression	Counsel should have sought suppression before advising plea	Counsel reasonably advised plea to avoid exposure (up to 99 years) and preserve no-jail outcome; suppression risked losing plea deal	Court: Counsel’s plea advice was strategic and reasonable; not ineffective
3. Failure to present surveillance video	Video was exculpatory or impeaching and could have altered outcome	Video lacked audio, interior footage, or evidence about consent; at best impeachment, not exculpatory; would not likely change result	Court: Video was impeachment-only; no reasonable probability of different outcome; not ineffective
4. Failure to raise conflict of interest re: Detective Cavazos	Cavazos (brother-in-law of victim) had motive/benefit from arrest; conflict should have been litigated	No authority bars officer assisting family; counsel saw relationship as potential advantage; no demonstrated adverse effect	Court: No established conflict or prejudice; not ineffective

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (application of Strickland to guilty-plea advice)
Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (burden on applicant in art. 11.072 ineffective assistance claims)
Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785 (deference to habeas court findings)
Burge v. State, 443 S.W.2d 720 (spouse may consent to search of marital premises)
Harm v. State, 183 S.W.3d 403 (distinguishing exculpatory from impeachment evidence)
Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d 865 (applicant's burden by preponderance)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (objective-reasonableness focus for searches/stops)