OPINION
Opinion by:
In June 2006, appellant pled no contest to the misdemeanor offense of assault causing bodily harm. Among other conditions, appellant was sentenced to one year confinement, which was probated for eighteen months, and assessed a fine of $1,500, *210 which was probated to $200. At the time, appellant, a native of Mexico, was a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In March 2010, appellant was apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and he was ultimately ordered removed from the United States. On July 16, 2010, appellant filed the underlying “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus to Vacate Misdemeanor Conviction,” asking that his 2006 conviction be vacated on the grounds that the attorney who represented him on the 2006 assault charge did not properly admonish him that his plea would result in removal. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the application and this appeal ensued. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, appellant first contends his plea and conviction were invalid because he was not informed about the immigration consequences of his plea of no contest. The basis of this complaint is that his attorney represented to him that “he would only have a problem in the future if he wished to apply for Naturalization.” Therefore, according to appellant, his plea and subsequent conviction were obtained in violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 26.13(a)(4) and violated his due process right to effective assistance of counsel.
Article 26.13 requires a trial court, prior to accepting a plea of no contest, to admonish the defendant of “the fact that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States of America, a plea of ... nolo con-tendere for the offense charged may result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law ...” Tex. Code Crim. Proo. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(4) (West 2009). The reporter’s record from the 2006 plea hearing reveals the trial court provided this admonishment to appellant. After admonishing appellant, the court then asked appellant if he wanted to proceed with his plea, and appellant answered affirmatively. Also, at the hearing on the habeas application, the State informed the trial court and appellant did not dispute, that although the admonishment was in English, appellant also was given a waiver in Spanish. Therefore, the record contradicts appellant’s first argument.
Relying on the recent United States Supreme Court opinion in
Padilla v. Kentucky,
— U.S. -,
The standard set forth in
Strickland v. Washington,
In support of his application for writ of habeas corpus, appellant provided the trial *211 court with affidavits from himself and his wife, and a statement from the attorney who represented him in 2006. Appellant stated in his affidavit that counsel “never explained to [him] that [he] would be deported because of [his] plea on this case.” Appellant contends counsel instead told him he would not be deported but that he “may have problems in the future if [appellant] ever tried to adjust [his] status to that of a United States Citizen, ... [counsel] never explained that [appellant] would be deported as a result of this conviction.” Appellant’s -wife made similar contentions in her affidavit. Appellant’s former trial counsel was not present at the habeas hearing; however, appellant’s counsel represented to the court that former trial counsel “did not remember what he told” appellant.
In
Padilla,
the United States Supreme Court first noted that “[t]he proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.”
Here, appellant argues his plea resulted in an aggravated felony conviction that is clearly a removable offense. However, appellant pled no contest to misdemeanor assault and the judgment reflects he was found guilty of a misdemeanor. Because nothing in the record indicates removal was certain in this case, we cannot conclude appellant established that “the deportation consequence [was] truly clear” for the misdemeanor assault conviction.
Additionally, even assuming that removal from this country was a “truly clear” consequence of appellant’s plea of no contest to misdemeanor assault, appellant must still establish former trial counsel was ineffective for not providing the advice
Padilla
requires. In this case, former trial counsel could not remember what he told appellant and the trial court, as the finder of fact, determined the affidavits of appellant and his wife were “very vague as to the exact language ... spoken by the attorney....”
See Charles v. State,
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we overrule appellant’s issues on appeal and affirm the trial court’s order.
Notes
. Appellant’s second issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his application for writ of habeas corpus because the court considered factors irrelevant to the issue of whether his plea was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. According to appellant, the court improperly considered post-plea motions to revoke his probation and other irrelevant criminal offenses. Because we conclude appellant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his former trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in 2006, we do not reach this issue. See Tex.R.App. P. 47.1.