Ex Parte Yadher Murillo, 389 S.W.3d 922

Murillo, a Nicaragua-born legal permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2004 to assault of a family member and received deferred adjudication for one year with a $400 fine.
In 2009, federal removal proceedings were instituted and Murillo was ordered removed based on his assault conviction.
Murillo filed a state habeas corpus petition in 2011 challenging the voluntariness of his plea as affected by ineffective assistance of counsel.
Plea counsel Eva Silva testified she informs noncitizen clients of potential immigration consequences and reviewed the green plea form with Murillo.
Murillo signed the green plea form acknowledging potential deportation; the habeas court found his plea voluntary and counsel adequate.
The court of appeals affirmed denial of relief, rejecting that lack of Padilla-based prejudice established reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel's performance deficient under Padilla?	Murillo argues Silva failed to inform him of presumptively mandatory deportation.	Silva contends she advised of possible immigration consequences and followed standard practice.	No, Padilla deficiency not proven in prejudice.
Was there prejudice under Strickland from counsel’s failure to warn about deportation?	Murillo would have insisted on trial if deportation were certain.	State contends no reasonable probability1 would reject plea given evidence and risks.	No prejudice shown; plea denial affirmed.
Should Padilla be applied retroactively in this case?	Murillo relies on Padilla’s retroactive application to habeas relief.	State argued against retroactivity; court ultimately addresses prejudice.	Padilla retroactivity acknowledged; prejudice analysis controls outcome.
Was there sufficient evidence to conclude that rejecting the plea would be irrational?	Murillo asserts trial could avoid deportation and conviction.	State shows strong evidence of guilt and lack of defenses; trial risk same deportation.	Yes; no rational basis to refuse the plea under the circumstances.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (duty to advise noncitizens of deportation consequences; truly clear impacts)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (applies Strickland to guilty-plea cases)
Aguilar v. State, 375 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (retroactivity of Padilla and prejudice framework in Texas)
Salazar v. State, 361 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011) (defense and community support affecting prejudice analysis)
Ex parte Tanklevskaya, 361 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (prejudice analysis in plea-bargain context)
Ex parte Ali, 368 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (prejudice when evidence of guilt is strong and defenses lacking)
Enyong v. State, 369 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (immigration consequences as true-deportation clarity context)
Ex parte Romero, 351 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (record-based prejudice evaluation in habeas review)