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 Case No. 1145993A

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant, Jorge Luis Morales, challenges the trial court’s order denying 

him the relief that he requested in his application for a writ of habeas corpus.

1

 In 

 1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 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 citizen 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. 

On April 29, 2011, the United States Department 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 plea 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 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 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 

consequences 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, the trial court denied appellant’s application. 

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 

explained 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 that with two exceptions, “new constitutional rules of criminal 

procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the 
4

new rules are announced”). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, recognizing the 

holding in Chaidez, has likewise 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 law). 

Here, appellant pleaded guilty in 2007, 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 for a writ of habeas corpus. 

We overrule appellant’s sole issue. 

Conclusion

We affirm the order of the trial court.

Terry Jennings

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish.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