Ex Parte Pablo Jose ROLDAN
418 S.W.3d 143
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Pablo Jose Roldan pled guilty in March 2005 to felony possession with intent to deliver cocaine, under an eight-year deferred-adjudication community supervision with discharge after six years.
- In February 2012, police detained him after a traffic stop and placed an immigration hold indicating possible deportation.
- Roldan filed a post-conviction habeas corpus application alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because plea counsel allegedly failed to inform him that the plea could lead to deportation and that he would not have accepted the plea if aware of immigration consequences.
- The habeas court conducted a hearing and denied relief, adopting credibility-dominated findings favorable to counsel.
- The court applied the Strickland standard for guilty-plea claims and considered Padilla v. Kentucky to assess whether counsel’s performance was deficient regarding deportation consequences, noting Chaidez tempered retroactivity.
- The court concluded the record showed counsel properly admonished about immigration consequences, and that, under pre-Padilla law, immigration consequences were collateral and did not render the plea involuntary; it denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Chaidez retroactivity apply to this claim? | Roldan argues Chaidez bars retroactivity and supports relief. | Roldan's position is that Chaidez should preclude retroactive application and support relief; appellee argues against retroactivity or that Padilla/De Los Reyes control. | Chaidez does not apply retroactively on collateral review. |
| Did article 26.13(a)(4) impose a duty on counsel to inform about deportation? | Argues article 26.13(a)(4) imposes counsel duty to advise on deportation consequences. | Argues the statute imposes duty on the trial court, not counsel; no counsel duty created by the statute. | Article 26.13(a)(4) imposes no duty on counsel; immigration consequences are collateral. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client of deportation risks from plea)
- Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Padilla not retroactive on collateral review)
- Ex parte Sudhakar, 406 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (immigration consequences considered collateral under pre-Padilla law)
- State v. Jimenez, 987 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (immigration consequences not direct consequences of plea)
- Ex parte Luna, 401 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (immigration consequences remain collateral under pre-Padilla law)
- Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (pre-Padilla framework for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Ex parte Reed, 402 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (standard of review for habeas corpus findings)