Escamilla, Julio Cesar
WR-40,148-03
| Tex. App. | Oct 15, 2015Background
- Applicant Julio C. Escamilla pleaded no contest in 2006 to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received ten years deferred adjudication supervision.
- The State later filed a motion to adjudicate; Escamilla admitted one alleged violation, the court found most violations true, revoked supervision, adjudicated guilt, and on Oct. 20, 2011 sentenced him to two concurrent life terms.
- The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on direct appeal (Aug. 2, 2012); no PDR or certiorari was filed.
- Escamilla filed a pro se application for writ of habeas corpus raising (1) involuntary plea based on counsel’s erroneous/coercive advice (threat CPS would take his children), (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple alleged omissions), (3) ineffective assistance on direct appeal (failure to advise re: PDR and provide materials), and (4) double jeopardy (two counts allegedly duplicative).
- The brief develops factual and legal arguments (Strickland standard, indictment defects, inadequate admonishments, enhancement-sequence and notice problems) and asks the Court of Criminal Appeals either to grant relief or to require counsel affidavits and further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Involuntary plea due to counsel coercion (threat CPS) | Escamilla says trial counsel threatened CPS removal of his children to coerce acceptance of plea; but for that advice he would have insisted on trial. | State/respondent not argued in brief; primary remedy sought is habeas factfinding. | Not yet resolved — applicant requests habeas relief / factfinding and counsel affidavit. |
| 2. Ineffective assistance at trial (investigation, indictment defects, admonishments) | Counsel failed to investigate/request investigator, failed to object to defective indictment (disjunctive manners, no specific date, wrong degree notation), failed to object to enhancement-sequence and failure to admonish re: consequences of deferred adjudication revocation. | State/respondent not developed here; brief asserts these omissions satisfy Strickland and need fact resolution. | Not yet resolved — applicant requests habeas relief or affidavit from trial counsel. |
| 3. Ineffective assistance on direct appeal | Appellate counsel failed to provide Escamilla with briefs/opinion, failed to inform him of the right and deadline to file a pro se PDR, depriving him of appellate options. | State/respondent not developed in brief; relies on CCA precedent imposing duties on appellate counsel to advise client. | Not yet resolved — applicant requests counsel affidavit and further proceedings. |
| 4. Double jeopardy (duplicative counts) | Counts allegedly overlap: one alleges "caused bodily injury," the other "threatened to cause bodily injury," amounting to impermissible multiple punishment / two bites at the apple. | State/respondent not addressed in brief; analysis invokes Blockburger elements test. | Not yet resolved — applicant asks CCA to address double jeopardy claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland applies to counsel's advice on plea decisions)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (constitutional right to counsel as a fundamental guarantee)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (right to effective assistance of counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (prejudice to the proceeding from counsel failure)
- Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Texas CCA discussion of ineffective-assistance claims)
- Ex parte Chaddock, 369 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (double jeopardy discussion in Texas CCA)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (double jeopardy applied to the states)