Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 14, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00407-CR EX PARTE JOSE ISABEL HERNANDEZ, Appellant On Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court Waller County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15-05-15242A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jose Isabel Hernandez appeals the trial court’s denial of his post- conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his plea counsel failed to (1) thoroughly investigate his case; and (2) properly apprise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant is a Mexican citizen and permanent legal resident of the United States. Appellant has lived in the United States since 1989. Appellant was indicted for indecency with a child, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11 (Vernon Supp. 2017). Appellant hired attorney James Rivera as defense counsel. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge in November 2016. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. After beginning probation, appellant was detained by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) and deportation proceedings were initiated. Represented by new counsel, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus asserting that his November 2016 guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily because Rivera failed to (1) investigate two witnesses that allegedly heard complainant recant her allegations; and (2) inform appellant that pleading guilty would render him automatically eligible for deportation. Attached as exhibits to the habeas application were affidavits from appellant and appellant’s friend Maria Mendellin; a transcript of the November 2016 plea hearing; and a document entitled “Felony Admonitions to the Defendant” signed by appellant at the plea hearing. The trial court held a hearing on appellant’s habeas application in April 2017. In relevant part, appellant’s affidavit states as follows. 8. Attorney James Rivera never informed me that I could or likely would be deported if I took a plea of guilty and obtained deferred adjudication in this case. He did not explain that a deferred adjudication was the same as a conviction for immigration purposes. He did not explain that I would lose many rights in immigration court due to this plea (the right to obtain bond or to apply for Withholding of Removal, for example). Attorney James Rivera only explained the sex offender registry requirements and the probation period, but never said anything about my legal permanent residency being revoked or threatened. 9. I would never have plead[ed] guilty if I had known my legal permanent status was in jeopardy. Had Attorney James Rivera given me the information I now know (that deportation is not only possible, but very likely with this charge and that even a deferred adjudication counts as 2 a conviction for immigration purposes), I would have continued to fight my case. Mendellin, appellant’s friend, was present at all of appellant’s meetings with Rivera. With respect to the immigration consequences of appellant’s plea, Mendellin’s affidavit states: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals