Ex Parte Adnan Asgar Shroff, 09-17-00082-CR

Applicant: Adnan Asgar Shroff sought post-conviction relief under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 from a deferred-adjudication community supervision order.
Shroff raised four grounds: facial challenge to Texas Penal Code § 33.021(c) (First Amendment); claim of actual innocence based on age (not more than three years older than the minor); ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to advise of the age-defense; and involuntary guilty plea tied to counsel’s failure to advise.
The trial court denied the habeas application as frivolous, finding Shroff manifestly not entitled to relief.
The Court of Appeals reviewed that determination de novo and considered whether the claims could be resolved from the face of the application.
The court held the facial constitutional challenge failed because § 33.021(c) had not been declared unconstitutional by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; that ground was frivolous.
The court concluded the remaining three claims could not be resolved on the face of the application, set aside the trial court’s order as to those claims, and remanded for factual development and merits determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial challenge to § 33.021(c) under First Amendment	§ 33.021(c) is unconstitutional and cannot support prosecution	Section has not been declared invalid by Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; facial challenge could have been raised on direct appeal	Denied as frivolous; applicant not entitled to habeas relief because statute had not been declared unconstitutional
Actual innocence based on age-defense (≤3-year age difference)	If true, Shroff is not guilty under § 33.021(e)(2)	State argues merits cannot be determined from the application alone	Not resolved on face of application; remanded for factual development
Ineffective assistance – counsel failed to inform Shroff of age-defense	Counsel’s failure prejudiced plea decision and constitutes ineffective assistance	State contends record insufficient to adjudicate claim on face of application	Not resolved on face of application; remanded for factual development
Involuntary guilty plea due to counsel’s failure to advise of defense	Plea was involuntary because counsel did not inform him of viable age-defense	State contends voluntariness cannot be decided from the application alone	Not resolved on face of application; remanded for factual development

Ex parte Baldez, 510 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (standard for de novo review of manifest-entitlement dismissal)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (ineffective-assistance prejudice standard in plea context)
Ex parte Imoudu, 284 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (plea/involuntariness and ineffective-assistance principles)
Ex parte Arjona, 402 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013) (remand appropriate when record insufficient to decide habeas claims)
Ex parte Nelson, 137 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (procedural guidance for habeas proceedings)
Ex parte Fournier, 473 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (limitations on habeas review of facial constitutional challenges)