Ricardo Salazar v. State of Texas, 361 S.W.3d 99

Salazar pled guilty to theft of property valued at $1,500 or more but less than $20,000 and received two years deferred adjudication, a $500 fine, $1,800 restitution, a $50 crime stoppers fee, and $240 in costs.
The plea occurred with Salazar, a permanent resident, facing certain deportation as a result of his guilty plea.
Salazar’s attorney advised there was a possibility of deportation, but did not convey that deportation was certain.
Salazar sought postconviction habeas relief alleging the guilty plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland and Padilla.
The habeas court denied relief; Salazar appealed challenging the denial and the deferred adjudication/CS placement orders.
The court held that the habeas court abused its discretion and reversed, vacating the deferred adjudication and placement orders and remanding to answer the indictment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel's deportation advice was constitutionally deficient	Salazar	State	Yes; incorrect deportation advice satisfied Strickland prong one
Whether Salazar was prejudiced by deficient advice	Salazar	State	Yes; would have gone to trial if correctly advised, rational under circumstances
Whether the trial court properly applied Strickland and related precedents	Salazar	State	No; court abused discretion in denying relief and mischaracterized likelihood vs certainty of deportation

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; two-pronged test)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (correct deportation advice required when deportation is a consequence)
Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (deference to credibility; standard for habeas review)
Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (deference to trial court's findings in habeas proceedings)