Ex Parte Jose J. Lopez, 10-14-00378-CR

Defendant Jose J. Lopez pleaded guilty to attempted delivery of a controlled substance to a minor; trial court accepted plea, deferred adjudication, and imposed five years' community supervision and a $1,000 fine.
Lopez, a noncitizen who admitted he was in the U.S. illegally, filed an article 11.072 writ alleging trial counsel failed to advise him of immigration consequences of the plea.
Trial court ordered counsel to file an affidavit; counsel submitted an affidavit stating he warned Lopez that the plea/deferred adjudication could be treated as a conviction for immigration purposes, likely causing deportation and barring reentry or naturalization.
The plea hearing transcript and plea paperwork contained immigration admonishments by the court and acknowledged by Lopez.
Trial court denied the writ without an evidentiary hearing; Lopez appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise of immigration consequences	Lopez: counsel failed to correctly advise that plea would constitute an immigration conviction and make him deportable	Counsel: he advised Lopez repeatedly, believed deferred adjudication still counted as an aggravated felony for immigration, warned of deportation risk, encouraged immigration counsel	Court affirmed: Lopez failed to prove counsel’s advice fell below competent standards or prejudiced him
Whether trial-court admonishments or plea papers can substitute for counsel's advice	Lopez: admonishments/plea papers cannot replace counsel's obligation under Padilla	State: court and plea papers, plus counsel’s warnings, informed Lopez of immigration consequences	Court affirmed: court admonitions, plea paperwork, and counsel’s affidavit show Lopez was warned and understood consequences
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the writ	Lopez: disputed facts (counsel’s advice) required a hearing	State: record contained affidavits from Lopez, immigration expert, counsel, and plea transcript; article 11.072 does not mandate a hearing	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; hearing not required to resolve controverted facts

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen whether plea carries risk of deportation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
Ex parte Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (guilty plea involuntariness from ineffective assistance)
Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (right to effective assistance during plea proceedings; prejudice standard for plea advice)
Hughes v. State, 833 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (trial-court admonishment creates prima facie showing plea was knowing and voluntary)