Ex Parte: Wisdom Ukachukwu Amanze v. State
05-16-00579-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Ukachukwu Wisdom Amanze, a Nigerian national and U.S. legal permanent resident since 2007, pleaded guilty in 2012 to four misdemeanors (assault-family violence, unlawful restraint, interference with emergency call, violation of protective order) in exchange for 24 months deferred adjudication.
- Deferred adjudication plus these offenses triggered mandatory deportation risk under federal immigration law; immigration authorities detained Amanze and ordered removal.
- Amanze filed a post-conviction writ under Tex. Crim. Proc. Art. 11.072 alleging his pleas were involuntary because trial counsel failed to advise him of the deportation consequences (ineffective assistance). The trial court held a hearing where both Amanze and his public defender testified.
- Amanze testified he had minimal contact with counsel, was not warned about immigration consequences, did not read plea papers, and would not have pled guilty if advised of deportation risk.
- Trial counsel testified to standardized intake practices: asking birthplace/citizenship, explaining charges, admonishments, and immigration consequences when a client indicates noncitizen status; counsel denied simply pushing papers and said he would have advised Amanze if told he was not a citizen.
- The trial court found Amanze not credible, credited counsel’s testimony and related documentary indications that Amanze told magistrates he was a U.S. citizen, and denied the writ. The Court of Appeals affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record supports the trial court’s finding that Amanze knowingly waived rights and was aware of immigration consequences | Amanze: record shows he was uninformed, met counsel briefly, was not advised about deportation, and would not have pled if warned | State/Trial counsel: counsel followed standard intake/admonition procedures, asked about birthplace/citizenship, and would have advised if Amanze disclosed noncitizen status | Held: Affirmed — trial court’s credibility determinations supported finding Amanze was aware; appellate court deferred to factfinder |
| Whether trial counsel performed deficiently under Strickland/Padilla by failing to advise about deportation | Amanze: counsel failed to verify citizenship, did not give required deportation advice, and failed to investigate defenses or dismissed charges | State: counsel’s testimony showed routine inquiry into citizenship and immigration-advice practice; record not silent; no showing counsel’s performance fell below objective standard | Held: Counsel’s performance not shown deficient; first prong of Strickland not met |
| Whether Amanze was prejudiced (would have insisted on trial) by any deficient advice | Amanze: he would have gone to trial if warned of deportation | State: trial court made no adverse credibility finding warranting relief; because first prong fails, prejudice analysis unnecessary | Held: Not reached as appellant failed to prove deficient performance; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients about deportation consequences; affirmative duty when consequences are clear)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (applicant bears burden by preponderance; trial court is sole factfinder on Art. 11.072; appellate deference to credibility findings)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice inquiry in plea context: reasonable probability defendant would have proceeded to trial absent counsel’s errors)
- Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate courts need not address Strickland prejudice where first prong not met)