Ex Parte Rodriguez, 350 S.W.3d 209

appellant pled no contest to misdemeanor assault causing bodily harm in 2006; sentence included one year confinement (probated for 18 months) and fine $1,500 (probated to $200)
appellant, a Mexican native, was a lawful permanent resident at the time
in 2010, ICE apprehended him and ordered removal from the U.S.
in July 2010, appellant filed a habeas corpus application to vacate the 2006 conviction on grounds that his prior counsel failed to admonish about immigration consequences
the trial court denied the application and this appeal followed
the appellate court affirmed, holding no reversible error in counsel’s representation under Padilla and article 26.13(a)(4) based on the record

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea admonishments complied with Article 26.13(a)(4)	Rodriguez	Rodriguez	Admonishment found proper; no reversible error
Whether counsel's performance was ineffective under Padilla	Rodriguez asserts counsel failed to warn of deportation risk	Rodriguez fails to prove counsel deficient under Strickland	Record insufficient to show deficient performance
Whether the deportation consequence was clearly foreseen at plea	Padilla requires clear deportation risk when obvious	Deportation not certain for misdemeanor assault	Deportation not shown as certain consequence; not clearly foreseen

Padilla v. Kentucky, 560 U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (duty to advise on deportation when clearly predictable)
Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ineffectiveness standard requires record-supported claims)
Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (trial court not required to credit uncontradicted affidavits)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (ineffective-assistance claims must be firmly founded in the record)