Opinion issued June 25 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01
- 12
- 00897
- CR

——————————— EX PARTE JORGE LUIS MORALES

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1145993A

M EMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jorge Luis Morales , challenges the trial court’s order denying
hi m the relief that he requested in his application for a writ of habeas corpus

. 1 In

1 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.072, § 8 (Vernon 2005) (providing for appeal in felony or misdemeanor case in which applicant seeks relief from order or judgment of conviction ordering community supervision).2 his sole issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his application in which he asserted that his counsel failed to discuss with him the
clear immigration consequences of his plea of guilty to the offense of possession of
a controlled substance. 2
We affirm. Background On December 18, 2007, appellant , a citize n of Guatemala who was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 2004 , pleaded guilty , and , pursuant to his plea agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt.
O n April 29, 2011, the United States Dep artment of Homeland Security
instituted proceedings to remove appellant from the country based on his guilty plea. Appellant subsequently filed his application in the district court , asserting that
had he been advised by his trial counsel that his guilty p lea would result in his deportation, he “would have insisted on going to trial and presenting a vigorous
defense.” Appellant attached to his application the affidavit of his attorney , who testified in pertinent part as follows : It was my practice at the time to advise all of my noncitizen clients of the possibility of serious immigration consequences from pleading

2 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A N N

. § 481.115(a)

– (b) (Vernon 2010).3 guilty, as indicated by the required statutory admonishments and plea papers, and I reviewed the admonishment with Morales. When discussing the Deferred Adjudication of Guilt option with community supervision, I did explain there could be immigration consequen c es and so did Judge Velasquez during the admonishment phase of the plea, but I did not tell Morales that he would be deported. After a hearing, t he trial court denied appellant ’ s appli cation

. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In his sole issue on appeal, Morales argues that he received ineffective
assistance in regard to his plea because his trial counsel did not comply with
Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010). 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. 559 U.S. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 1482. However, the Court has since explai ned that because Padilla announced a new rule of criminal procedure it does not apply retroactively. Chaidez v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013) ; see also Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060 , 1075 (1989) (holding th at with two exceptions, “new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the4 new rules are announced”) . The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals , recogniz ing the holding in Chaidez , has likewi se decided that Padilla does not apply retroactively
under the Texas Constitution. Ex parte De Los Reyes , 392 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explicitly rejecting the opportunity to accord retroactive effect

to Padilla as matter of state habeas la w)

. Here, appellant pleaded guilty in 200 7 , three years before Padilla was decided. He does not argue that his counsel’s performance was deficient under

pre
- Padilla law. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying his application f or a writ of habeas corpus.
W e overrule appellant’s sole issue

. C onclusion
We affirm the order of the trial court.

Terry Jennings Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).