Enyong, Ex Parte Kufreabasi Ita

OPINION PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellant pled guilty in 2010 to assault and *209 violation of a protective order. He subsequently filed an application' for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas. The trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeals reversed. Enyong v. State, 369 S.W.3d 593 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012). 1 The State has filed a petition for discretionary review contending the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), applies retroactively to the collateral review of a state conviction that was final when the Padilla opinion was issued, and that the Appellant failed to establish he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that, under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect. Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013). We adopted that Court’s reasoning as a matter of state law in Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Ex parte De Los Reyes. Therefore, we grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of Ex parte De Los Reyes. Footnotes [1] As an appeal from a ruling on a writ of habeas corpus, the style of the case should be Ex parte Enyong.