Ex parte Becciu

Decision Date10 November 2020
Docket NumberNO. 01-19-00800-CR,01-19-00800-CR
Citation615 S.W.3d 482
Parties EX PARTE Octavian BECCIU, Appellant
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Landau.

Evelyn V. Keyes, Justice

In 2011, appellant, Octavian Becciu, pleaded guilty to the Class A misdemeanor offense of assault on a family member.1 Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication, which he successfully completed in January 2013. In 2019, he brought the underlying application for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to set aside the order of deferred adjudication on the basis that his guilty plea was not voluntary. The trial court denied the request for habeas relief on the basis of laches. In three issues, appellant contends that (1) his guilty plea was involuntary due to the severe pain that he was in as a result of a motorcycle accident that had occurred several days prior to the charged offense; (2) his original plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and this appeal should be abated to allow him to raise this claim before the trial court; and (3) the trial court erred in concluding that his request for habeas relief was barred by the doctrine of laches.

We affirm.

Background

On December 16, 2011, appellant was involved in an altercation with his girlfriend, and he was arrested and charged with the Class A misdemeanor offense of assault on a family member. Three days later, on December 19, appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense. The plea paperwork contained the following statement:

I confess that I committed the offense as alleged in the State's information and that each element of the State's pleading is true. In open court I freely and voluntarily enter my plea of guilty/nolo contendere to the offense charged in the information and request the Court to make immediate disposition of this case based upon my plea.

The trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea, deferred adjudication of guilt, and placed appellant on community supervision for one year. Appellant successfully discharged his community supervision obligation, and the trial court dismissed the case against him in January 2013.

In May 2019, appellant filed the underlying application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant sought relief from the order of deferred adjudication, arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary. Appellant stated that he had been involved in a motorcycle accident on December 11, 2011, and fractured his leg

. On December 16, five days later, appellant and his girlfriend became involved in a physical altercation at the apartment they shared, and appellant was arrested. Appellant stated that he was not allowed to take his pain medication to the jail with him. After he was booked in the jail, he saw medical personnel, but he was not given pain medication.

Appellant argued that three days after his arrest, on December 19, 2011, he was taken to court for his first court appearance, where he met his court-appointed counsel, David Fleischer, for the first time. Appellant argued:

[Appellant] tried to explain that [his girlfriend] attacked him but [Fleischer] responded that, if he disputed her account, he would have to proceed to trial and that it could be months before that occurred, months that he would have to spend waiting in the Harris County Jail. [Appellant] immediately dismissed that idea and explained to [Fleischer] his injury, the lack of care or medication in the jail, and that he needed to get out immediately. [Fleischer] then explained that he was able to get the prosecutors to offer him deferred adjudication community supervision which would allow him to get out of jail immediately.
The most important thing to [Appellant] at that instant was the fact that, by accepting the plea offer, he would get released from the Harris County Jail. He agreed to do so and signed off on paperwork acknowledging he was entering his plea freely and voluntarily, even though in his mind, he knew his decision was anything but that.

Appellant appeared before a visiting judge and stated that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, "even though he knew he was not guilty and his decision to plead guilty was not free and voluntary." The visiting judge accepted appellant's guilty plea and he was released from jail the next morning. Appellant immediately went to the hospital, and soon thereafter, he had surgery on his leg.

Appellant argued that he had been denied employment opportunities as a result of his criminal record. He argued that he had experienced periods of homelessness and financial difficulties following his release from jail and from the hospital. He stated that he attempted to enlist in the Army in 2014, but he could not enlist because his offense involved domestic violence and he was barred from possessing a firearm. He further stated that he had been turned down from employment opportunities because of his criminal history. Appellant's application for habeas relief raised one ground for relief: he argued that his guilty plea was involuntary "due to his medical condition and associated injury." Appellant did not argue that his plea counsel had rendered ineffective assistance.

In response, the State argued that appellant failed to meet his burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his guilty plea was involuntary. The State argued that appellant "understood his options and that, if he disputed his guilt, he would have to go to trial, but he did not wish to do so." The State further contended that appellant had not argued that, as a result of his medical condition, he was unable to understand the proceedings or the consequences of pleading guilty, but, instead, appellant "freely admits that he lied to the Court and manipulated the proceedings in order to gain his immediate release."

The State also argued that appellant's request for habeas relief should be barred by the doctrine of laches. The State argued that appellant had admitted that he learned of the adverse employment consequences his criminal history would have while he was still on deferred adjudication in 2012, but he waited until May 2019, more than seven years after he was placed on deferred adjudication, to bring his habeas claim. The State argued that appellant's delay in bringing his habeas claim caused it prejudice because it had destroyed its file pursuant to its two-year retention policy for misdemeanor cases and that it was likely that Fleischer, appellant's plea counsel, who was now the presiding judge of the Harris County Criminal Court at Law Number 5, would no longer be in possession of appellant's file. The State also argued that it was prejudiced because, two years after appellant's arrest, the arresting officer pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault of a child, was sentenced to prison, and was unlikely to be available as a witness in the event of a re-trial. As evidence, the State attached the judgments of conviction for the arresting officer, appellant's plea paperwork for the charged offense, the written admonishments appellant signed when he was placed on deferred adjudication, the offense report for the charged offense, and the complainant's written statement concerning the charged offense.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on appellant's application, and appellant testified as the only witness. Appellant testified that he first came to the United States from Moldova in 2008 on a work and travel visa, that he applied for asylum in 2009, and that he became an American citizen in 2019. Appellant met the complainant in March 2010, and they moved in together in May 2010. The complainant was one of appellant's only connections in America. Appellant testified that he was involved in a series of motorcycle accidents in 2011. He was not injured in the first accident. The second accident occurred in September 2011, and appellant broke his ankle. Appellant had surgery, and doctors placed a plate and screws in his ankle. Appellant had a third motorcycle accident on December 11, 2011, and he fractured his leg

. Hospital personnel prescribed narcotics to help with the pain and recommended that appellant consult a surgeon. Appellant was not able to walk without crutches, and he described his pain as "bad" but manageable with medication. Appellant had a follow up appointment scheduled for December 18 or 19.

Appellant testified that, on December 16, 2011, he was involved in an altercation with his girlfriend, who "kicked and stomped" his injured ankle

. After appellant's girlfriend called the police, an officer arrived at their apartment and arrested appellant. The officer did not allow appellant to take his pain medication with him to the jail, but he was allowed to take his crutches. Appellant testified that, at that time, he had around $20 in cash and less than $200 in a bank account. After appellant explained that he was injured, jail personnel took away his crutches and gave him a different set. Medical personnel ordered that appellant have a bottom bunk, but they did not give him any medication or refer him for further examination. When asked if he believed that he would be re-evaluated while at the jail, appellant stated, "They said I can come back in two months." Appellant believed that it was possible that he might be taken to the emergency room, but that did not happen. He testified that he did not have anyone to call to assist him in getting out of jail; he was not allowed to contact the complainant, and his mother lived in Greece. Appellant stated that his "main priority" was to "get out of the jail and fix [his] leg."

Appellant testified that he had his first court appearance on December 19, 2011. Before he appeared in court, he spoke with Fleischer, his court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ex parte Allen
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2022
    ... ... trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that ... Allen's habeas claims could be resolved without convening ... an evidentiary hearing and that his request for an ... out-of-time appeal was barred by laches. See Ex parte ... Becciu, 615 S.W.3d 482, 495 (Tex. App-Houston [1st Dist] ... 2020, no pet.) (upholding trial court's decision that ... laches barred relief where applicant waited seven years ... before filing writ application, where State showed it had ... been prejudiced by delay, and where ... ...
  • In re Interest of P.R.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2020
  • Ex parte Barnum
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 2023
    ...evidence from the State, the trial court was free to determine that Appellant did not prove a justifiable delay. See Ex parte Becciu, 615 S.W.3d 482, 494-95 App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, no pet.). The trial court also acted within its discretion when it found that the State would be prejud......
  • Ex parte Alonso
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 6, 2023
    ...and conclusions of law in its order. Therefore, the trial court did not follow the procedures set forth in Article 11.072. See Ex parte Becciu, 615 S.W.3d 482, 491 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, no pet.); also Ex parte Garcia, 2018 WL 1545505, at *3 (reversing and remanding where the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT