The opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-11-00831-CR
NO. 03-11-00832-CR
Ex parte Safiq Karedia
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. D-1-DC-08-300752-A & D-1-DC-08-300753-A
HONORABLE CLIFFORD BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
Since we issued our opinion dated February 15, 2013, higher courts have issued
opinions that reinforce our conclusion that the trial court did not err by denying Safiq Karedia
relief on his applications for writs of habeas corpus. We do not withdraw our original opinion, but
we supplement it with this opinion.
As set out in our original opinion, Karedia sought relief from his guilty pleas in 2008.
Those pleas led to deferred adjudication community supervision that was later revoked. Karedia
contended that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not sufficiently advising him of
the immigration-law consequences of his guilty plea. See Padilla v. v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473,
1481-82 (2010).
Five days after we released our original opinion in these cases, the Supreme Court
declared that its holding in Padilla did not apply to collateral challenges to convictions that
were final when Padilla was handed down. Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1106 (2013).
The United States Supreme Court concluded that its Padilla opinion announced a new rule
of constitutional criminal procedure and could not be applied retroactively. Id. at 1113; see also
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1999). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals then adopted
that holding for cases in state courts. Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2013). The court of criminal appeals also clarified that a guilty plea is a conviction that is final
on the date of the plea for purposes of federal immigration law and for determining whether Padilla
applies—even when adjudication is deferred and the charges are later dismissed. State v. Guerrero,
400 S.W.3d 576, 587-88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
Karedia pleaded guilty on September 19, 2008. His “conviction” was thus final for
immigration-law purposes long before Padilla issued on March 31, 2010. As a matter of law, he is
not entitled to relief under Padilla, and cannot show either that his trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance or that the habeas court erred by denying him relief on that basis.
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: October 11, 2013
Do Not Publish
2