IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-79,463-01
EX PARTE JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 1249692-A IN THE 351ST DISTRICT COURT
FROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the
clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte
Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of theft and
sentenced to 180 days’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.
Applicant contends, among other things, that counsel failed to advise him of the deportation
consequences of his guilty plea. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). Counsel responded in
a sworn affidavit, and the trial judge found his affidavit credible, made findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and recommended that we deny relief. On May 8, 2013, we adopted the trial
judge’s findings of fact and denied relief.
2
On May 13, 2013, we received a supplement from the District Clerk. It included a motion
Applicant filed in the trial court to set aside the trial judge’s findings and conclusions; an order the
trial judge signed granting this motion; and new findings and conclusions, prepared by Applicant and
signed by the trial judge on May 1, 2013, recommending that this Court grant relief on Applicant’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
On June 12, 2013, we reconsidered our previous denial on our own motion and remanded
this application for further findings and conclusions. On January 15, 2014, after determining that
the record was not adequate, we remanded this application again and directed the trial judge to
determine whether Applicant was removed from the United States for reasons unrelated to his
conviction. According to the record, Applicant was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(C)(i) and was admitted to the United States as a border crosser or nonimmigrant visitor
at a Mexican border port of entry for a temporary period and had not received permission to remain
in the United States beyond the authorized period.
On remand, the trial judge found that Applicant was removed under 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(1)(C)(i), not because he had been convicted in the present case. We conclude that Applicant
has not demonstrated that he would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s advice. Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985). Relief is denied.
Filed: October 1, 2014
Do not publish