Whether Padilla v. Kentucky applies to denaturalization consequences of a guilty plea

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Carlos Noe Gallegos faces the loss of his naturalized citizenship due to his counsel’s faulty advice regarding the consequences of his guilty plea in the underlying criminal proceeding. The Texas Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial District affirmed the state trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that assuming Padilla v. Kentucky applies, because Gallegos trusted his counsel’s advice and did not thereafter repeatedly question him about the immigration consequences of his plea, he failed to show sufficient prejudice. The questions presented are: 1. Should the Court resolve the circuit split regarding whether Padilla applies to denaturalization consequences flowing from a guilty plea? ii 2. Did the trial court and Thirteenth Court of Appeals apply an erroneous prejudice standard by requiring proof that the “consequences of taking a chance at trial were not markedly harsher than pleading guilty,” and should Gallegos be faulted for not repeatedly questioning his counsel’s erroneous advice?