Ex Parte Romero
351 S.W.3d 127
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Romero pled no contest to aggravated sexual assault of a child and received deferred adjudication for ten years.
- Romero filed a habeas corpus application seeking relief from the denial of his petition.
- Romero claimed insufficiency of the evidence to prove guilt.
- Romero claimed the court failed to admonish immigration consequences of the plea.
- Romero claimed trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not advising on immigration consequences and by not diligently investigating.
- The court reversed the denial and granted habeas corpus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for guilt | Romero | Romero | Issue not cognizable; alternatively confessions sustain guilt |
| Immigration admonishment adequacy | Romero | Romero | Admonishment adequate; issue overruled |
| Ineffective assistance re immigration advice | Romero | Romero | Counsel deficient; prejudice shown; relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform client of deportation risk; deportation truly clear requires explicit advice)
- Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Strickland standard; deferential review in habeas)
- Moosa v. I.N.S., 171 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 1999) (deportation consequences tied to conviction for immigration purposes)
- Ex parte Jessep, 281 S.W.3d 675 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (sufficiency challenges not cognizable in habeas)
- Ex parte Grigsby, 137 S.W.3d 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (concerning sufficiency of evidence in habeas context)