Aghaegbuna Odelugo v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9786
Tex. App.2013Background
- Appellant Aghaegbuna Odelugo pleaded guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity (aggregate theft > $200,000) and agreed in plea papers to pay $600,000 restitution; sentencing was set for a later date.
- Appellant is a non‑citizen; plea admonitions included a written warning that guilty pleas may have immigration consequences.
- Appellant later moved to withdraw his plea, asserting his counsel, Erik Sunde, failed to advise him of mandatory immigration consequences (Padilla claim); the trial court denied that motion.
- In a subsequent new‑trial motion, appellant alleged ineffective assistance based on an actual conflict of interest: he gave Sunde $285,000 to hold in trust for state restitution, but Sunde did not pay the funds and allegedly misappropriated them.
- At the new‑trial hearing appellant testified and introduced checks totaling $285,000; Sunde invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not contest appellant’s testimony. The State stipulated Sunde received a substantial amount placed in trust.
- The trial court denied the new‑trial motion; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Sunde’s self‑interest in the missing funds created an actual conflict that adversely affected appellant (requiring a new trial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Odelugo) | Defendant's Argument (State / Sunde) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s misuse/misappropriation of client funds created an actual conflict of interest | Sunde received $285,000 to hold in trust for restitution and misused it, creating a conflict between Sunde’s self‑interest and Odelugo’s interests | Trial court suggested lack of proof that counsel made a choice disadvantaging client; Sunde largely invoked Fifth Amendment | Yes. The uncontroverted evidence showed an actual conflict based on counsel’s self‑interest |
| Whether any conflict adversely affected the defendant at sentencing/trial | Odelugo could not pay $600,000 restitution as promised, which likely affected sentencing and the plea outcome | Trial court noted it made no promises to defer adjudication on payment; argued sentencing would not necessarily have changed | Yes. The court found the conflict adversely affected appellant because inability to pay restitution was significant to sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Acosta v. State, 233 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (actual conflict exists when counsel must choose between client’s interests and other interests)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise non‑citizen clients about deportation risks of pleas)
- Monreal v. State, 947 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (conflict test examines whether counsel was required to choose between client and counsel’s interests)
- Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 1996) (defendant must identify record instances reflecting counsel’s choice among alternative courses)
- Koher v. State, 988 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (trial court’s credibility findings and resolution of conflicting evidence afforded deference)