Ex parte Manuel Torres (original by judge alcala)
Annotate this CaseIn an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to adequately advise appellant Manuel Torres regarding the presumptively mandatory deportation consequences of his guilty plea. Appellant was a Mexican national whose parents brought him to the United States as a young two- or three-year-old child. In 2006, appellant obtained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, which gave him legal permission to reside and work in this country. In February 2011, appellant, on two occasions, went to Whataburger restaurants and stole money from the cash registers. At the time of his arrest for those offenses, appellant was found to be in possession of cocaine and marijuana. He was subsequently charged with the felony offenses of robbery and possession of cocaine. Appellant entered into a plea bargain with the State. In exchange for appellant’s plea of guilty to both offenses, the State agreed to recommend a sentence of ten years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision on the robbery charge and five years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision on the possession charge. In addition, the State agreed to forgo prosecution of a related burglary-of-a-building charge and to decline prosecution on a misdemeanor possession-of-marijuana charge. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea, and it sentenced him in accordance with the State’s recommendations. Several days after the plea hearing, appellant was re-arrested on separate charges. At that point, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) became aware of appellant’s plea to the robbery and possession offenses, and it placed a detainer on him that would prevent him from being released from law-enforcement custody. ICE subsequently transferred appellant to a federal immigration detention facility, and it initiated removal proceedings against him. The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that appellant was not prejudiced as a result of counsel’s error because appellant failed to show that he would have pursued a trial had he been correctly advised about the immigration consequences of his plea. Accordingly, the Court overruled the State’s third ground in its petition for discretionary review that contended that trial counsel did not render deficient performance, and the Court sustained the first two grounds that asserted that the court of appeals erred by determining that appellant was prejudiced. The trial court's judgment was reinstated, denying relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.