Ex Parte Yekaterina Tanklevskaya, 361 S.W.3d 86

In 2009, Tanklevskaya, a legal permanent resident, pled guilty to a Class B misdemeanor possession of less than two ounces of marijuana, with four days in jail and a six‑month license suspension; she did not appeal.
After pleading, she traveled abroad; upon return, immigration authorities detained her and initiated removal proceedings for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) based on the state offense.
Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held that defense counsel must inform a client of deportation risks when deportation is a clear consequence of a guilty plea.
In May 2010, Tanklevskaya filed a habeas corpus petition arguing plea counsel failed to inform her of specific immigration consequences; counsel testified that he provided only general warnings and did not specify that leaving would be presumptively inadmissible.
The plea paperwork warned of possible deportation or inadmissibility; the trial court admonished generally under article 26.13(a), but the record showed no specific advice about presumptive inadmissibility or the 30-gram waiver issue.
The court ultimately granted habeas relief, set aside the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactive.application of Padilla on collateral review	Padilla should apply retroactively to collateral review.	Padilla announces a new rule not retroactive on collateral review.	Padilla applies retroactively on collateral review.
Deficient performance by plea counsel under Padilla/Strickland	Counsel failed to inform that plea would render inadmissible and waivers were unavailable due to quantity issue.	Counsel informed general immigration consequences; no special misadvice.	Counsel’s performance was deficient.
Prejudice from deficient performance	But-for counsel’s errors, she would have stood trial rather than plead guilty.	No sufficient link between counsel’s errors and outcome.	There was a reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice established.
Cure by trial court admonishment under Article 26.13(a)	Cursory admonition should cure prejudice.	Admonition covers only general consequences.	Admonishment did not cure the prejudice.
Remedy and relief on habeas corpus	Relief is proper due to involuntary plea.	Relief unnecessary if Padilla retroactivity or cure applies.	Habeas relief granted; judgment set aside and remanded.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (deportation consequences must be communicated when clearly predicted)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (new constitutional rules generally not retroactive on collateral review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preponderance standard for habeas relief and deferential review of factual findings)
Morrow v. State, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deficient performance must render plea involuntary under Strickland)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard in involuntary guilty plea context)