Ex parte Uribe
Decision Date | 09 March 2017 |
Docket Number | NO. 02–16–00372–CR,02–16–00372–CR |
Citation | 516 S.W.3d 658 |
Parties | EX PARTE Elida URIBE |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Bruce Anton, Sorrels, Udashen & Anton, Brett Ordiway, Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
Catherine Luft, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Denton, TX, for State.
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER AND SUDDERTH, JJ.
Appellant Elida Uribe appeals the trial court's denial of her habeas application, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the immigration consequences of her guilty plea and that, but for counsel's deficient performance, she would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.09 (West 2015) ; Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 369, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) ; see also Le v. State , 300 S.W.3d 324, 326–27 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (discussing jurisdiction over habeas application based on "collateral legal consequences" from misdemeanor conviction). We affirm.
Lewisville police arrested Uribe, a Mexican citizen, on March 31, 2009, alleging that she had beaten her "sister," Mariana Segura,1 "with her fists and stabbed her with a knife." The police interviewed Segura in the hospital emergency room, where she reported that Uribe had knocked her to the ground, repeatedly punched her in the face, hit her in the face with a purse, kicked her in the mouth, and cut her forearm with a six-inch steak knife, leaving a one-inch laceration that required stitches. An officer photographed Segura's injuries, which included the laceration and other bumps, bruises, and scratches. Segura gave the officer permission to retrieve the knife from the apartment where the assault occurred. The police also took photographs that depicted the knife and blood on the carpet from the scene of the assault.
After receiving and waiving her Miranda rights, Uribe recounted to the police her version of the encounter, admitting that she had assaulted Segura.2 She also admitted that she had grabbed a steak knife from the kitchen but said that Segura was cut when Segura reached for it.3 Uribe was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,4 a second-degree felony offense with a punishment range of two to twenty years' confinement and up to a $10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33, 22.02(b) (West 2011).
Uribe pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor assault as a lesser-included offense5 in exchange for 270 days' confinement in county jail with no fine and no family violence finding.6 See id. § 12.21 (West 2011) ( ). Uribe's plea agreement included the statement, "I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States of America a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for the offense charged may result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under Federal law."
The trial court signed the judgment of conviction on September 17, 2009. A few months later, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Uribe with a notice to appear, charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).7
Seven years later, in 2016, Uribe filed her application for writ of habeas corpus, to which she attached copies of the 2009 indictment and judgment of conviction, an affidavit in which she set out another version of the facts underlying the conviction and raised a self-defense claim,8 DHS's notice to appear, her former immigration counsel's affidavit, and her current immigration counsel's affidavit.
Uribe stated in her affidavit that her former immigration attorney had improperly advised her and her criminal defense attorney and stated,
The State attached to its answer to Uribe's application copies of Uribe's plea bargain documents; the original police report pertaining to Uribe's March 31, 2009 arrest, which contained Uribe's oral statements to the police about the events of that evening; photographs of Segura's injuries, the knife, and the bloodstained carpet; Uribe's written statement to the police; Segura's written statement to the police; Uribe's book-in photo; Segura's emergency protective order; and the court settings with plea bargain data. The State also filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the trial court adopted.
Among other things, the trial court found the following in its findings of fact:
The trial court concluded that even if Uribe's counsel was found to be constitutionally deficient in his representation, Uribe had failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that, but for his errors, she would not have pleaded guilty because it would not have been rational under the circumstances when she would have risked a harsher penalty with the same immigration consequences. The trial court further concluded that rejecting the plea bargain would not have been rational because the evidence showed that Uribe had committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and that if she had proceeded to trial, "it is likely she would have been found guilty." And it concluded that Uribe's claimed legal and factual defenses in her 2016 affidavit were not credible considering the other evidence, including her signed confession from 2009; that rejecting the plea bargain would not have been rational when Uribe did not state that immigration consequences were her primary concern in 2009 when she was facing up to twenty years in prison; and that Uribe had failed to show that the State would have offered a different plea bargain that would have helped her avoid negative immigration consequences. The trial court further stated that rejecting the plea bargain was not rational because if Uribe had taken the aggravated-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon case to trial, she would not have been eligible for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Martinez
...record evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling[.]" Kniatt , 206 S.W.3d at 664 ; Ex parte Uribe , 516 S.W.3d 658, 665 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref'd). Moreover, we must afford great deference to the habeas court’s findings and conclusions, especially when, as......
-
Ex parte Gutierrez, 09-17-00336-CR
...appellate court would in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an abuse of discretion occurred. Ex parte Uribe, 516 S.W.3d 658, 665 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref'd). We will only overrule the trial court's ruling on an application for a writ of habeas corpus if the court's......
-
Ex parte Saldana
...that but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Ex parte Uribe, 516 S.W.3d 658, 666 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref'd). The test for determining the validity of a plea is whether it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice......
-
Ex parte Samal
... ... that determination. Ex parte Moody , 991 S.W.2d 856, ... 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ... A plea ... is valid if it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice ... among alternative courses of action open to the defendant ... Ex parte Uribe , 516 S.W.3d 658, 666 (Tex. App.-Fort ... Worth 2017, pet. ref'd). "When a person attacks the ... validity of his prior guilty plea as that plea is reflected ... in the written judgment, he bears the burden of defeating the ... normal presumption that recitals in the written ... ...