Ex Parte Julio Gialito Aruizu, 01-15-00250-CR

Applicant Julio Gialito Aruizu was arrested in May 2002 on a family‑assault charge and pleaded guilty on July 17, 2002, receiving a short jail sentence and an affirmative family‑violence finding.
In 2014 appellate counsel investigated and filed a habeas application (hearing Feb. 3, 2015) asserting (1) actual innocence (Herrera‑type and Schlup‑type) based on three affidavits (complainant Juana Lerma, eyewitness Edgar Lerma, and Applicant) and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate, interview witnesses, or advise on defenses.
Affidavits claim the complainant now admits she lied in 2002, the eyewitness did not see an assault, and Applicant asserts innocence; defense says counsel never contacted these witnesses.
Trial counsel’s affidavit reportedly states no recollection of the case or file; Applicant says counsel advised pleading guilty because of job risk and court inconvenience rather than discussing defenses or investigation.
Trial court denied the habeas application after the hearing; Applicant appealed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Aruizu)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (trial court)
Whether record supports a Herrera‑type actual innocence claim	New, clear and corroborative affidavits show no assault; clear and convincing evidence no reasonable juror would convict	State relied on original conviction record and contested credibility of late affidavits	Denied — trial court refused habeas relief
Whether record supports a Schlup‑type gateway claim to review constitutional error	Affidavits raise sufficient doubt that, coupled with counsel error, warrants merits review of ineffective‑assistance claim	State opposes reopening via Schlup standard	Denied — trial court refused habeas relief
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/interview witnesses	Counsel abandoned duty to investigate, never contacted key witnesses, gave inadequate advice causing involuntary plea	State asserts conviction and plea stand; relies on trial record and counsel’s limited affidavit	Denied — trial court refused habeas relief
Whether ineffective assistance prejudiced Applicant’s guilty plea (would have gone to trial)	But for deficient performance there is reasonable probability Applicant would have insisted on trial or received better outcome	State contends no sufficient showing of reasonable probability of different outcome	Denied — trial court refused habeas relief

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 314 (1995) (innocence can be a gateway to review of otherwise barred constitutional claims when new evidence raises sufficient doubt)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (distinguishes free‑standing actual innocence claims and sets high standard for relief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Texas treatment of Herrera and Schlup standards for habeas relief)
Ex parte Scott, 190 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for assessing ineffective assistance claims on habeas)