Ex parte Joel DE LOS REYES, Applicant.
No. PD-1457-11.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 20, 2013.
392 S.W.3d 675
Joe J. Monsivais, Assistant District Attorney, El Paso, Lisa C. McMinn, State‘s Attorney, Austin, TX, for State.
OPINION
HERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., and PRICE, JOHNSON, KEASLER, COCHRAN, and ALCALA, JJ., joined.
Applicant below, Jоel De Los Reyes, filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to advise Applicant that he was almost certainly subject to deportation after he pled guilty to a second crime of moral turpitude. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010); see also
In 1993, Applicant was admitted tо the United States as a permanent legal resident. In 1997, Applicant pled guilty to a charge of misdemeanor theft. On October 25, 2004, he entered a guilty plea to a second charge of misdemeanor theft and was sеntenced to one day of confinement in the El Paso County Jail and ordered to pay a fine and court costs. See
Applicant neither filed a timely motion for new trial in the triаl court nor filed a direct appeal. See
The following month, on March 31, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284. In Padilla, the defendant argued that his trial counsel failed to advise him of deportation consequences before he entered a guilty plea and that he would have gone to trial had he received that advice. The Supreme Court began by rejecting the Kentucky Supreme Court‘s holding that a defendant‘s Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel does not extend to the collateral consequences of a defendant‘s guilty plea. The Supreme Court determined that “[t]he collateral versus direct distinction is ill-suited to evaluating a Strickland4 claim concerning the specific risk of deportation” and, thus, ”Strickland applies to Padilla‘s claim.” Id. at 1482. Then, in its Strickland application, the Court held that defense attorneys must advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. Id.5
On May 11, 2010, while in custody at a United States Immigration and Detention Facility, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a new trial for the 2004 theft offense. He argued, in part, that his guilty plea was involuntary because trial counsel failed to inform him that his plea would lead to deportation.6 See Padilla, 130 S.Ct. 1473. On June 16, 2010, Applicant filed an amended application for writ of habeas corpus, which contained a memorandum of law and two affidavits (one from Applicant and one from his trial counsel). Applicant stated in his affidavit that his attorney did not advise him that he would face deportatiоn by pleading guilty to another theft charge. Similarly, trial counsel stated in his affidavit that he did not properly review the immigration consequences, and Applicant‘s deportation is a direct result of his failure to proрerly advise his client as to the outcome and consequences of a plea. On June 30, 2010, the State filed its answer to the amended writ application. The State argued, in part, that Padilla did not apply retroactively to the writ application because the conviction became final before Padilla was issued.
On July 8, 2010, the trial court heard evidence and argument on Applicant‘s writ application. Applicant‘s trial counsel was the only witness to testify during the hearing. Trial counsel reiterated his affidavit testimony that he did not discuss the possible immigration consequences with Applicant prior to the guilty plea. On cross-examination, however, trial counsеl stated that it is part of his regular practice to review the plea papers with his clients. At
On direct appeal, the El Paso Court of Apрeals reversed the trial court‘s ruling. De Los Reyes, 350 S.W.3d 723. The court of appeals initially held that the rule announced in Padilla applied retroactively in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. Id. at 729. It reasoned that the Padilla rule “was not a ‘new rule’ as defined by Teague,7 but an instance in which thе well-established standard for determining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was applied to a specific circumstance; i.e., counsel‘s responsibility to inform a non-citizen of the potential impact a guilty plea may have on his or her immigration status.” Id. The court then determined that Applicant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to inform him that a guilty plea would have a negative impact on his status as a permanent resident in the United States and this deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id. at 730-32.
We granted the State‘s petition for discretionary review to address the retroactivity of Padilla. Specifically, the ground for review asks, “Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), applied retroactively to the collateral review of state convictions that were finаl when the Padilla opinion was issued?”
Under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), the retroactivity of criminal-procedure decisions from the Supreme Court turns on whether those decisions are novel. Generally, when a “new rule” is announced, a defendant whose conviction is already final may not benefit from that decision in a habeas or similar proceeding.8 Id. A case announces a new rule “when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation” on the government. Id. That is, “a case announсes a new rule if the result was not dictated by a precedent existing at the time the defendant‘s conviction became final.” Id.
Neither the trial court nor the court of appeals had the benefit of the recеnt opinion of Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013), in which the United States Supreme Court explicitly held that Padilla announced a new rule and, thus, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. Applying Teague, the Supreme Court explained that Padilla did more than simply apply Strickland‘s gen
That threshold question had come to the Court unsettled, as Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), had explicitly left open the question of whether the Sixth Amendment right extends to collateral consequences. Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. at 1110. Consequently, when the Supreme Court handed down Padilla and held that the Strickland analysis applies tо claims concerning the specific risk of deportation, it answered a question about the Sixth Amendment‘s reach that had not previously been decided. In doing so, it broke new ground and imposed a new obligation. Id. (citing Teague, 489 U.S. at 301). Therefore, because Padilla imposed a “new rule” of constitutional criminal procedure, Teague provides that a defendant whose conviction was already final at the time that Padilla was handed down may not benefit from that decision in a habeas or similar proceeding. Teague, 489 U.S. at 301; see Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. at 1113.
We recognize that we could accord retroactive effect to Padilla as a matter of state habeas law. See Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008) (holding that Teague does not constrain “the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than is required by that opinion“). But we decline to do so. We adhere to the retroactivity analysis in Chaidez and its holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively. This Court follows Teague as a general matter of state habeas practice,9 and this case does not present us a reason to deviate here.
Turning to the case before us, Applicant cаnnot benefit from the retroactive application of Padilla. Applicant‘s second theft conviction became final on December 10, 2004. See
Because the rule from Padilla does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review, we will reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and we reinstate the order of the trial court. This Court will not entertain а motion for rehearing.
WOMACK, J., concurred.
MEYERS, J., not participating.