Torres, Ex Parte Manuel, 483 S.W.3d 35

Background

Manuel Torres, a lawful permanent resident brought to the U.S. as a child, pleaded guilty in 2011 to robbery and possession of cocaine in exchange for deferred-adjudication community supervision and dismissal of related charges.
Days after the plea, ICE placed a detainer, transferred Torres to immigration custody, and initiated removal proceedings.
Torres filed a post-conviction habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 claiming ineffective assistance under Padilla for failure to adequately advise that his plea would lead to presumptively mandatory deportation.
At the habeas hearing, trial counsel testified he warned Torres several times that the pleas could result in deportation and advised consulting an immigration attorney, but conceded he did not research the Immigration and Nationality Act or explicitly state deportation was virtually certain.
The trial court credited counsel’s testimony, denied relief, and found counsel’s representation effective. The court of appeals reversed, finding deficient performance and that Torres had shown prejudice.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed counsel’s performance was deficient under Padilla but reversed the court of appeals on prejudice, holding Torres failed to prove a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Torres)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether counsel’s advice was constitutionally deficient under Padilla	Counsel failed to clearly advise that pleas to the charged offenses would presumptively and virtually certainly result in deportation	Counsel warned of a risk and advised consulting immigration counsel; did not expressly promise deportation wouldn’t occur	Counsel’s performance was deficient — Padilla requires clear advice when deportation consequences are "truly clear"
Whether the deportation consequences here were "truly clear" such that stronger advice was required	The controlled-substance conviction and robbery (an aggravated felony) made deportation presumptively mandatory	Counsel’s belief that deportation is not always immediate or inevitable meant his general warnings were sufficient	The Court held the statutory consequences were clear; stronger, specific advice was required
Whether prejudice should be presumed from a Padilla violation	Torres relied on affidavits and circumstances to show he would have chosen trial or sought immigration-neutral options if properly advised	The State argued Hill/Strickland prejudice standard applies; prejudice cannot be presumed; must show reasonable probability of rejecting plea	Prejudice is not presumed; Hill/Strickland governs — applicant must show a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial
Whether Torres proved prejudice (i.e., would have rejected plea and gone to trial)	Affidavits and facts (LPR status, long U.S. residency, English speaker) show he valued avoidance of deportation and would have pursued other options or trial	Trial court credibility findings supported counsel’s account; strong evidence against Torres (confession) and favorable plea terms made rejecting the plea irrational	Torres failed to prove prejudice; court defers to trial court credibility findings and reinstates denial of habeas relief

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct.) (counsel must advise noncitizen clients about clear, presumptively mandatory deportation consequences of pleas)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Sup. Ct.) (prejudice in guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims requires reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, defendant would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Art. 11.072 trial court is sole factfinder; appellate courts defer to trial court credibility findings)