Leonardo Aguilar v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5416
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Aguilar was charged in April 2005 with felony possession of less than a gram of cocaine, plea in October 2006 reduced to a class-A misdemeanor, sentenced to 10 days in jail and $500 fine.
- Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition on December 21, 2010 asserting his trial counsel failed to inform him that the guilty plea would be presumptively mandatory deportation.
- Counsel Medlin testified that he advised clients that guilty pleas could lead to deportation, exclusion, or denial of naturalization, but did not tell Aguilar whether immigration consequences were definite.
- The trial court denied habeas relief, finding Medlin counseled in accord with professional norms, and no findings of fact or conclusions of law were required.
- The court discusses Padilla v. Kentucky, issues of retroactivity under Teague, and remands for a trial-court determination of prejudice under Strickland; the dissent argues to affirm without remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla applies retroactively in this habeas context | Aguilar; Padilla retroactive in Texas habeas | Medlin; Padilla retroactivity uncertain at Teague stage | Remand for prejudice determination; retroactivity treated as applicable |
| Whether counsel's failure to inform presumptively mandatory deportation renders performance deficient | Aguilar claims deficiency under Padilla for not informing presumptively mandatory deportation | Medlin argues he advised of possible deportation but not the certainty; claimed compliance with norms | Padilla requires defect finding; remand for prejudice prong evaluation |
| Whether there is a reasonable probability of different outcome if prejudicial error shown | But-for errors, Aguilar would have gone to trial | Record marginal; trial court could have disbelieved; no proof of prejudice | Remand for trial court to determine prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether the record supports relief given lack of findings | Record insufficient to prove prejudice | Trial court implicit findings; no abuse of discretion | Remand cited; majority grants relief by remand to assess prejudice |
| Whether the majority may reverse an otherwise error-free judgment for developing law | Remand to explore prejudice despite no explicit error | Remand improper where judgment error-free | Remand proper under Rule 43.3 only if reversal warranted by error; dissenting view |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) ( Sixth Amendment counsel to advise on deportation; retroactivity debated; precedent dictates analysis of prejudice under Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice prong requires probability of different outcome)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity framework for new vs old rules in collateral review)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (U.S. 1970) (counsel's duty in plea decisions; applicable to Padilla context)
- St. Cyr v. INS, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2001) (recognizes noncitizens' stake in remaining in the U.S.; immigration consequences discussed)