1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-12-00311-CR

_________________

EX PARTE QUYEN TRUNG LY

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-030334-AR

________________________________________________________________________

OPINION

In this appeal, we are asked to retroactively apply the 2010 ruling of the 

United States Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky to the appellant’s guilty plea 

hearing, which occurred in 2004. 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284

(2010). In two issues, Quyen Trung Ly contends that his guilty plea was 

involuntary because he was not effectively counseled about the effect of his plea 

on his immigration status.

In 2003, Quyen Trung Ly was charged in two counts with possessing 

controlled substances. In 2004, after being admonished that a plea of guilty could 
2

result in his deportation, Ly pled guilty to having possessed methamphetamine. 

The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Ly on community 

supervision.1 Subsequently, Ly successfully completed and was discharged from 

community supervision. 

Generally, an alien who is convicted of violating a drug law “is deportable.” 

8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (West 2005 & Supp. 2010) (providing that “[a]ny 

alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of . . . any 

law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a 

controlled substance . . ., other than a single offense involving possession for one’s 

own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable”). Under Padilla, “when 

the deportation consequence is truly clear,” counsel has a duty to give correct 

advice. Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1483. 

In 2012, in a collateral attack on his 2004 conviction and relying on Padilla, 

Ly filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. In his application, Ly sought to 

establish that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of his guilty 

plea, making his plea involuntary, and that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s 

 1

Under federal law, for immigration purposes, a defendant who is placed on 

deferred adjudication is still treated as having been convicted of the offense. See 8 

U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (West 2005) (defining the term “‘conviction’” for 

immigration purposes to include cases where the adjudication and the sentence is 

not imposed).
3

incorrect advice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 § 1 (West 2005) 

(establishing procedures for an application for a writ of habeas corpus for cases 

that concern orders imposing community supervision). Ly alleges in his application 

that he “would not have entered a plea to deferred adjudication to possession of a 

controlled substance had he realized that it was a deportable offense.” Ly’s 

application also asserts that had he known that a guilty plea “would result in 

automatic eligibility for removal, he would not have entered a plea of guilty.” Ly 

filed an affidavit to support his allegation that he was never accurately advised 

concerning the consequences of his plea on his immigration status.

After the parties filed their briefs, the Supreme Court of the United States 

held that the rule announced in Padilla is a “new rule” of criminal procedure that 

does not apply retroactively. Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1107-08, 

185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013) (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 

103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989)). In Chaidez, the Supreme Court concluded that “a person 

whose conviction is already final may not benefit from the decision [in Padilla,] in 

a habeas or similar proceeding.” Id. at 1107. Recently, the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals held that Padilla does not apply retroactively as a matter of state habeas 

law. See Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). 
4

In a supplemental brief, appellant contends that the reasoning of the Court of 

Criminal Appeals in De Los Reyes “is faulty[.]” As an intermediate appellate court,

we are bound by the decisions of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in criminal 

cases. See Purchase v. State, 84 S.W.3d 696, 701 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2002, pet. ref’d).

Ly’s claim for habeas relief depends upon the retroactive application of 

Padilla. His conviction became final in 2004 when the trial court accepted his 

guilty plea, deferred adjudication of his guilt, and placed him on community 

supervision. See State v. Guerrero, No. PD-1258-12, 2013 WL 2419595, at *6 

(Tex. Crim. App. June 5, 2013). In Ly’s case, based on the law as it existed when 

he pled guilty, effective assistance of counsel did not include the requirement that 

his attorney advise him that he would become deportable if he chose to plead 

guilty to possessing methamphetamine. See Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530, 

536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Based on the date Ly was convicted on the conviction 

at issue, Padilla does not apply. See Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. at 1106-07. Under the 

precedents that apply to Ly’s case, we are required to overrule both of his issues.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying Ly’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus. 
5

AFFIRMED. 

 

________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Submitted on July 15, 2013

Opinion Delivered August 14, 2013

Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.