Ex Parte Rahul Sudhakar
406 S.W.3d 699
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Sudhakar, an Indian citizen, lived in the U.S. since childhood and was stopped for speeding on Aug. 16, 2009; alprazolam found; charged with reckless driving and possession of a controlled substance.
- Plea deal: Sudhakar pled nolo contendere to the drug charge in exchange for dismissal of reckless driving and one year of deferred adjudication.
- Neither Sudhakar nor his counsel appreciated that the nolo contendere plea constituted a deportable immigration conviction.
- Seven months later Sudhakar was arrested for marijuana possession; later, ICE took him into custody and began deportation proceedings.
- Sudhakar sought habeas relief arguing the plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to warn about immigration consequences; trial court granted habeas.
- On remand, the court held Padilla does not retroactively apply; petition denied and Sudhakar’s nolo contendere plea reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Padilla have retroactive effect for final convictions? | Sudhakar argues Padilla applies retroactively. | State argues Padilla announces a new rule not retroactive, per Chaidez and De Los Reyes. | Padilla not retroactive; pre-Padilla law governs habeas. |
| Whether counsel's failure to warn about immigration consequences was ineffective assistance under pre-Padilla standards. | Sudhakar contends counsel failed to warn, making plea involuntary. | State argues immigration consequences are collateral; no Sixth Amendment right to warning on collateral matters. | Ineffective assistance not shown under pre-Padilla collateral-consequence doctrine; plea not involuntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Sudhakar, 2012 WL 6061859 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (retroactivity of Padilla discussed within habeas context)
- Aguilar v. State, 375 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (pre-Padilla ineffective assistance framework)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2013) (Padilla announced a new rule not retroactive to final convictions)
- Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (declines retroactive application of Padilla under Texas law)
- Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (Sixth Amendment does not extend to collateral aspects of prosecution)
- State v. Jimenez, 987 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (collateral immigration consequences do not render plea involuntary)