Opinion issued July 19, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00960-CR ——————————— EX PARTE JOSE LUIS NASSAR RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1484221-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jose Luis Nassar Rodriguez, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.1 In his application, 1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072 (West 2015) (providing person confined on charge of felony conviction who received community supervision may apply for writ of habeas corpus); Tatum v. State, 846 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (“If a misdemeanor judgment is void, and its existence may have detrimental collateral consequences in some future proceeding, it may be collaterally attacked, whether or not a term of probation was successfully served appellant argues that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to accurately advise him regarding immigration and (2) his plea was involuntary because he did not understand the relevant circumstances about his immigration status. We affirm. Background According to his application, appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a building on March 15, 2017, and the trial court sentenced him to community supervision.2 On November 13, 2017, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea based on allegedly ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant argued that his trial attorney, William Cheadle, did not provide him with advice that burglary of a building is considered an aggravated felony under immigration law. Appellant also argued that the plea admonishments he signed did not provide effective notice of the immigration effects of the plea. And, the “three pages of the admonishments were not completely and accurately translated to him.” Appellant further argued that he would not have agreed to community supervision had he known that he would have been “swiftly removed out.”); see also State v. Collazo, 264 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d). 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West Supp. 2017). 2 from the community by DHS” and that his plea was involuntary because he did not understand the immigration consequences of the plea. The trial court denied his application on November 29, 2017. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on December 14, 2017.3 The trial court clerk filed the clerk’s record on December 27, 2017. The reporter’s record in this case was due January 22, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 31.1. However, the court reporter notified this Court that no reporter’s record had been taken. On February 9, 2018, appellant requested that we abate the appeal for the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. On February 15, 2018, we granted appellant’s motion. We received a supplemental clerk’s record with the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 21, 2018. Standard of Review In reviewing the trial court’s order denying ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals