Ex Parte Pedro Pena
13-14-00179-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 13, 2015Background
- Pena pleaded guilty in 2002 to indecency with a child, a second-degree felony, under a plea bargain with deferred adjudication and five years’ community supervision.
- In 2007 the trial court terminated Pena’s community supervision and released him from penalties, with a caveat about admissibility on later offenses.
- Pena filed an 2013 habeas corpus application under article 11.072, which the trial court denied without a hearing.
- The court treated Pena as challenging confinement and ultimately addressed laches and the merits of the plea-based claims.
- The court held Pena’s confinement did exist due to collateral consequences (sex-offender registration) and continued to the merits, while ultimately denying relief on the merits and noting laches issues.
- The memorandum opinion affirms the trial court’s denial of the writ on the merits, with the confinement issue sustaining Pena’s jurisdictional argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pena showed confinement under article 11.07 | Pena showed confinement via sex-offender registration as a collateral consequence. | State argued no confinement was shown. | Confinement shown; trial court lacked jurisdiction over the writ. |
| Whether the writ was barred by laches | Pena asserted laches barred relief. | State argued laches applied; the trial court reached merits. | Issue of laches sustained to the extent relied on; however, court proceeded to merits for other issues. |
| Whether Pena’s plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to explain charges, evidence, and suppression options; counsel misadvised him. | Pena signed admonishments and counsel provided effective representation. | Trial court did not abuse its discretion; no preponderance shown of involuntariness or ineffectiveness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (defines confinement for habeas purposes under art. 11.07)
- Mitschke v. State, 129 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (confinement as direct consequence of plea)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard for historical facts and mixed questions of law and fact in habeas review)
- Ex parte Roldan, 418 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. App.—(Houston [14th Dist.]) 2013) (Strickland standard for ineffective-assistance claims in plea context)
- Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (deference to trial-court factual findings; pure legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Ex parte Reed, 402 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (appropriate standard of review for habeas decisions)
- Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Boykin-type voluntariness considerations for guilty pleas)