State v. Reyes, Ex Parte Juan Carlos, PD-1277-14

Background

In 2006 Juan Carlos Reyes pleaded guilty to misdemeanor family-violence assault; sentence probated with a one-year jail term and fine. In 2012 he filed an article 11.072 habeas application alleging (1) counsel failed to advise him of immigration consequences (Padilla claim), (2) counsel failed to investigate and pursue self-defense, and (3) actual innocence.
After evidentiary hearings the trial court granted habeas relief, finding Reyes was not properly admonished about deportation and that he would not have pled guilty if so advised; the court’s findings and supplemental findings focused on Padilla.
The State appealed to the Eighth Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by retroactively applying Padilla and that the trial court’s findings were inadequate on Strickland’s deficient-performance and prejudice prongs.
The Eighth Court reversed, holding the trial court clearly relied on Padilla and abused its discretion applying it retroactively; it did not remand for findings on Reyes’s non-Padilla claims. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review on three questions about whether the appellate court improperly treated the trial court’s silence as denial of other claims and whether remand was required.
The State’s brief argued (1) the trial court’s actions and statements indicate it granted relief only on the Padilla claim and implicitly denied other claims, (2) additional findings on non-Padilla grounds were neither shown nor necessary for the appeal, and (3) Reyes could have separately appealed the partial denial of his other claims under art. 11.072 §8.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (Eighth Court / State position)
Whether the trial court’s grant of habeas relief rested solely on Padilla (immigration-advice)	Trial court’s findings could indicate relief was based also on self-defense and actual-innocence theories; appellate court should have remanded for fuller findings on non-Padilla grounds	Trial court’s record, supplemental findings, and on-the-record statements show the court relied on Padilla alone and expressly rejected actual-innocence; thus non-Padilla claims were impliedly denied	Eighth Court: relied on Padilla as sole basis; did not remand for non-Padilla findings. State argues that was correct.
Whether the appellate court improperly limited remand to Padilla-related supplemental findings	Reyes: remand order restricted trial court and deprived him of findings that might show other grounds dispositive	State: remand need only supply findings necessary to resolve the adverse ruling on Padilla; trial court declined to supplement non-Padilla findings so appellate court could treat those as denied or not dispositive	Eighth Court: did not err to limit remand to findings relevant to Padilla; additional non-Padilla findings were not essential to the appeal.
Whether the trial court’s failure to make explicit findings on non-Padilla claims should be treated as error requiring remand	Reyes: silence or partial findings cannot be given binding effect; court of appeals should not piecemeal findings	State: a trial court may implicitly deny claims; here court’s adjudicative acts and statements show it rejected other claims and focused on Padilla; remand would not aid resolution	Eighth Court / State: implicit denial was reasonable; remand unnecessary because non-Padilla grounds were not potentially dispositive to the Padilla appeal.
Whether Reyes was deprived of appellate review of denials on his non-Padilla claims	Reyes: appellate court’s approach curtailed his chance to obtain review of other writ grounds	State: article 11.072 §8 permits appellant (writ applicant) to appeal partial denials; Reyes could have appealed the adverse determinations he received but did not	State’s position: Reyes was not deprived of review by appellate error; any lack of appeal was his choice.

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise about clear immigration consequences of plea; prejudice requires showing rejection of plea would have been rational)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (Padilla announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively in federal cases)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Texas application of Chaidez/Padilla on retroactivity)
Ex parte Chavez, 371 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for actual-innocence relief requires clear-and-convincing proof that no reasonable juror would convict)