Ex Parte Alicia Brumant
14-15-00337-CR
Tex. App.Oct 13, 2015Background
- In 2001 Alicia Brumant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine; the State recommended three years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision. The court gave article 26.13 admonishments, including a warning about possible immigration consequences.
- Brumant completed deferred adjudication and the court dismissed the proceedings in 2004.
- In 2014 Brumant filed an art. 11.072 habeas application claiming ineffective assistance: (1) counsel failed to advise her of immigration consequences of the plea, and (2) counsel had a conflict of interest by also representing her co-defendant/boyfriend Keitrica Pickett.
- Affidavits: Brumant asserted counsel did not inform her deportation was a possibility; counsel (Irvin) stated she warned the plea "may have deportation consequences" and recommended immigration counsel. Pickett stated he told Irvin the drugs were his.
- The trial court denied relief without a hearing, finding Brumant did not prove ineffective assistance or an actual conflict that colored counsel’s actions. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict of interest from dual representation | Counsel represented both Brumant and Pickett, which allegedly deterred pursuing Brumant's defense that Pickett possessed the drugs | No actual conflict shown; Pickett pled to a greater offense and Brumant’s plea did not benefit Pickett; no evidence counsel acted for other interests to Brumant’s detriment | Court: No abuse of discretion; Brumant failed to prove an actual conflict that colored counsel’s conduct |
| Failure to advise immigration consequences (Padilla claim) | Counsel failed to inform Brumant that plea could lead to deportation; she would not have pled otherwise | Padilla does not apply retroactively to convictions final before March 31, 2010; here the plea is treated as a conviction for Padilla purposes | Court: Padilla not available; record shows no affirmative misadvice, so claim fails |
| Applicability of Padilla given deferred adjudication completion | Brumant (LPR) argued deferred adjudication is not a state conviction so Padilla should apply | Under federal immigration law and Guerrero, deferred adjudication after a guilty plea is treated as a conviction for Padilla’s application | Court: Guerrero controls; plea is treated as a conviction dated 2001, so Padilla is not retroactive |
| Whether this habeas application is an "initial" writ | Brumant argued prior application dismissal without hearing made this an initial application | Trial court did not treat it as subsequent; statutory requirements for considering subsequent writs were not triggered | Court: No error in trial court’s handling; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (holding counsel must advise when deportation risk is clear)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Padilla announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Ex parte De Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Padilla not retroactive under Texas habeas law)
- State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deferred adjudication following guilty plea is treated as a conviction for Padilla purposes)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland applies in guilty-plea context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (actual conflict requires showing counsel acted for other interests to the client's detriment)
- Monreal v. State, 947 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. Crim. App.) (definition of actual conflict)
- Odelugo v. State, 443 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App.) (burden and proof standards for conflict claims)