Opinion issued March 12, 2019 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00388-CR ——————————— EX PARTE GABRIELLA IZQUIREDO, Appellant On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 5 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2097999A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Gabriella Izquiredo, appeals from the trial court’s denial of her application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus.1 In her application, appellant argues that (1) she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her 1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072 (providing that person convicted on misdemeanor charge may apply for writ of habeas corpus to seek relief from judgment of conviction ordering community supervision). trial counsel failed to advise her of the potential immigration consequences and that, as a result, (2) her guilty plea was involuntary. We affirm. Background In March 2017, appellant pleaded guilty to prostitution,2 and the trial court sentenced her to community supervision for seven months. Jose Cantu, Jr., appellant’s counsel on the prostitution charge, acknowledged on the plea that he explained all matters to appellant, including applicable immigration consequences. Additionally, the plea reflects that appellant told the trial court that appellant was a United States citizen. After appellant completed the full term of her order, the court discharged her from community supervision on October 27, 2017. Appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the voluntariness of her guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Both of her arguments rest on the same premise: that her trial counsel did not inform her of the immigration consequences associated with her guilty plea.3 Appellant notes that a prostitution conviction results in a finding by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) of a lack of good moral character. Because she is not 2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.02. 3 In Padilla v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.” 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010). 2 a citizen and because her attorney did not inform her of the immigration consequences, appellant concludes that Cantu failed to meet prevailing professional standards.4 She also included an affidavit, stating that she resides in the country pursuant to a T-Visa and that Cantu did not advise her that a guilty plea to prostitution would result in her deportation by DHS. Finally, appellant stated that, had Cantu informed her of the possible immigration consequences, she would have exercised her right to a jury trial. The trial court ordered Cantu to submit an affidavit describing his advice to appellant. Although the record does not indicate that counsel ever filed an affidavit, the record does contain an e-mail in which Cantu claimed that he advised appellant of “the consequences,” that appellant agreed to plead guilty because she wanted to “get the case over with,” and that appellant told Cantu that she was a United States citizen. On March 6, 2018, the trial court denied appellant’s application. Appellant filed a notice of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals