Escobar, Ex Parte Tulio Wilfredo, PD-1423-15

Petitioner Tulio Escobar pleaded guilty (May 2, 2012) to DWI — third offense under an agreed sentence (five years, suspended; 3 years community supervision).
After arrest (found asleep at wheel, engine running), deputies performed a mandatory, warrantless blood draw under Tex. Transp. Code §724.012; BAC exceeded .08; no field sobriety tests recorded.
State later moved to revoke community supervision alleging driving with suspended/no license and failure to maintain financial responsibility; Escobar admitted some violations.
Escobar filed habeas alleging (1) Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation; (2) guilty plea involuntary because blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment; and (3) ineffective assistance for allowing an involuntary plea.
Habeas court found plea voluntary and no invocation of Fifth Amendment; the court of appeals affirmed (Oct. 6, 2015), holding Escobar waived the Fourth Amendment claim by not moving to suppress. Escobar filed this petition for discretionary review raising McNeely-based Fourth Amendment challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Escobar)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Escobar's guilty plea was involuntary because the conviction relied on a warrantless mandatory blood draw that violated the Fourth Amendment under Missouri v. McNeely	McNeely clarifies exigency law: the mandatory blood-draw scheme did not excuse a warrant; the warrantless draw violated the Fourth Amendment and thus the plea was not knowingly voluntary because it foreclosed a valid suppression challenge	The claim was waived because no pretrial motion to suppress was filed; the draw complied with the Transportation Code and prior Texas authority that allowed nonconsensual draws; plea colloquy and admonishments show voluntariness	Court of Appeals: claim waived for failure to move to suppress; conviction affirmed

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (warrantless blood draw may be reasonable under exigent circumstances when alcohol dissipates quickly)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (alcohol dissipation is not a per se exigency; exigency requires case-by-case totality-of-circumstances analysis)
Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (blood sample is a search/seizure; exigency can justify warrantless draw under circumstances)
Aviles v. State, 385 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (upheld warrantless mandatory draw under Transportation Code; later vacated and remanded in light of McNeely)
Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discussion of implied-consent context permitting blood draws in limited circumstances)
Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (guilty plea waives several constitutional rights; plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (guilty plea induced by threats/misrepresentations may render plea involuntary)