Opinion issued February 13, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00523-CR

———————————

EX PARTE JUAN ANTONIO TORRERO

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 981845-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Juan Antonio Torrero appeals from the trial court’s order denying his 

application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.072 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure.1

 In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court 

 1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072, § 8 (West 2005) (providing for 

appeal in felony or misdemeanor case in which applicant seeks relief from order or 

judgment of conviction ordering community supervision).
2

erred in denying his requested relief in light of his counsel’s alleged failure to 

discuss the clear immigration consequences of his guilty plea, in violation of 

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). We affirm.

Background

In 2004, appellant, a Mexican citizen, pleaded guilty to a charge of 

possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. He received five years 

deferred adjudication and was ordered to pay a $500 fine.

In February 2012, appellant filed an amended application for writ of habeas 

corpus in the trial court, asserting that his plea of guilty was involuntary because he 

had not been informed that a deferred adjudication would result in his deportation.2

 

Appellant stated that although counsel had advised him of the nature of the charge, 

the facts alleged, the range of punishment for the charged offense, and his legal 

rights at trial, he was admonished only that a guilty plea might affect his 

citizenship status but was not advised that it would result in his deportation as 

required by Padilla. In the memorandum of law submitted in support of his 

application, appellant also contended that he would not have pleaded guilty had he 

known that he would be deported.

 

2 In his application, appellant stated that he is currently detained in the Federal 

Immigration Detention Center in Livingston, Texas, although it is unclear from the 

record what precipitated his detention.
3

On May 16, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on appellant’s application. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied his application.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

In his sole issue, appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance in 

regard to his 2004 guilty plea because his trial counsel did not comply with 

Padilla. He asserts that Padilla applies retroactively to his case.

In Padilla, the United States Supreme Court held that counsel’s “advice 

regarding deportation is not categorically removed from the ambit of the Sixth 

Amendment right to counsel” and, therefore, counsel for a criminal defendant is 

required to provide advice regarding the immigration consequences following a 

guilty plea. Padilla, 559 U.S. at 366, 130 S. Ct. at 1482. However, the United 

States Supreme Court has since held that Padilla announced a new rule of criminal 

procedure and, therefore, does not apply retroactively. Chaidez v. United States,

568 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013). Relying upon Chaidez’s reasoning, 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently held that Padilla does not apply 

retroactively under the Texas Constitution. See Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 

S.W.3d 675, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explicitly declining opportunity to 

accord retroactive effect to Padilla as matter of state habeas law).

Bound as we are by precedent, and because appellant’s 2004 conviction 

became final six years before Padilla was decided, he may not avail himself of the 
4

decision on collateral review. See Ibarra v. State, ___ S.W.3d___, 2013 WL 

1163967, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, pet. ref’d)

(concluding that appellant who was convicted twelve years before Padilla could 

not rely on it on collateral review and affirming denial of habeas relief). 

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 

denied appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Jim Sharp

Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).