Ex Parte: Jesus Garcia
08-14-00155-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 15, 2015Background
- Jesus Garcia pled guilty in DIMS (District Attorney’s Information Management System) court to possession of marijuana (<2 oz.) and was sentenced to five days in jail per a plea agreement.
- Garcia later filed a post-conviction habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (and effectively denial of counsel) during his DIMS session with appointed attorney Bruce Ponder, claiming his plea was involuntary.
- At the habeas hearing, Ponder testified he counseled each DIMS defendant individually, reviewed files beforehand, and generally advised clients to plead not guilty; he denied coercing Garcia.
- Garcia testified he was told he could plead guilty or not guilty and that a guilty plea would result in five days credit, but claimed counsel did not discuss arrest circumstances or consequences; he admitted reading and understanding admonishments and that no one pressured him.
- The Criminal Law Magistrate (Judge Carter) logged that probable cause existed, that required warnings/admonishments were given, and that Garcia pled guilty; the trial court found Garcia not credible and concluded counsel’s performance was reasonable.
- The trial court denied relief; the Court of Appeals reviewed standards de novo for legal questions and affirmed, holding Garcia failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel constitutionally ineffective during DIMS, rendering plea involuntary? | Garcia: counsel provided only pro forma representation in DIMS; plea was involuntary and uninformed. | State/Ponder: counsel counseled individually, advised to plead not guilty, reviewed files, and did not coerce; warnings were given and plea was voluntary. | Held: No ineffective assistance; plea voluntary. |
| Was Garcia effectively denied counsel in DIMS proceedings? | Garcia: DIMS process and counsel’s performance were equivalent to no counsel. | State: DIMS is a screening procedure; counsel gave individual advice and protections were provided. | Held: Not denied counsel; DIMS procedures and counsel’s performance were adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (guilty plea ordinarily rests on defendant’s open-court admission)
- Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (standard of appellate review for habeas fact findings)
- Shipley v. State, 828 S.W.2d 475 (upholding group/jail-plea procedures where rights/advice were given)