In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-19-00206-CR EX PARTE DAVID ADAME On Appeal from the 76th District Court Titus County, Texas Trial Court No. 19,078 Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal follows the trial court’s denial of David Adame’s application for habeas corpus relief. In November 2017, Adame pled guilty to the state jail felony of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance (cocaine). 1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Adame on community supervision. In August 2019, Adame petitioned the trial court for habeas relief. Adame claimed that his trial counsel did not sufficiently advise him of the immigration perils attendant to his plea and, therefore, that he did not voluntarily enter his plea of guilty. The trial court rejected Adame’s argument and found that he made his plea voluntarily. We affirm the trial court’s ruling. I. Standard of Review Our review of a trial court’s ruling on an application for habeas corpus relief is highly deferential. “[A]s a general rule, the appellate courts . . . should afford almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of the historical facts that the record supports[,] especially when the trial court’s fact[-]findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor.” Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785, 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). “When the trial court’s findings of fact in a habeas corpus proceeding are supported by the record, they should be accepted by this Court.” Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). 2 “In an article 1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115. 2 We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on questions of law. See Ex parte Mayhugh, 512 S.W.3d 285, 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) 2 11.072[3] habeas case, . . . the trial judge is the sole finder of fact.” Garcia, 353 S.W.3d at 788. “An appellate court reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a habeas claim must review the record evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and must uphold that ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orig. proceeding). In Padilla v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court found ineffective assistance of counsel where the trial attorney failed to tell Padilla that deportation was virtually mandatory when Padilla pled guilty to “the transportation of a large amount of marijuana in his tractor-trailer.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 359 (2010). Although Padilla was decided on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, its holding that trial counsel must “give correct advice” when “the deportation consequence is truly clear” has been applied in considering whether an accused’s plea of guilty was entered voluntarily. Id. at 369; see Ex parte ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals