Ex Parte Sergio Rodriguez Cuellar, 13-15-00157-CR

Background

Applicant Sergio Rodriguez Cuellar pled guilty in 2003 to state-jail felony evading arrest; sentence of 2 years was suspended in favor of 5 years community supervision.
At plea hearing counsel waived two-day service of the indictment and the statutory 10-day preparation period on the record; Applicant signed plea forms and admitted his plea was voluntary.
Years later Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus alleging statutory violations: no two-day service of the indictment, indictment not read, and denial of ten days' preparation.
The trial court granted habeas relief, finding Applicant was not served with the indictment, was denied ten days to prepare, and that his plea violated federal and state constitutional rights.
The State appealed, arguing (1) the asserted rights are statutory (not cognizable on collateral habeas), (2) Applicant waived the statutory rights on the record, and (3) the trial court's factual findings conflict with the record and thus the court abused its discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Applicant's claims (failure to serve indictment two days before arraignment; indictment not read; denial of 10-day preparation) are cognizable on collateral habeas	Applicant contends statutory violations rendered his plea involuntary and warrant habeas relief	State argues the claims derive from statute (not federal constitution) and thus are not cognizable on post-conviction habeas; contemporaneous objections were not made	State contends trial court erred; appellate court should reverse trial court's grant of relief
Whether Applicant waived the two-day notice and 10-day preparation rights	Applicant asserts he did not receive or waive required notice/preparation time	State points to on-the-record waiver by counsel and signed plea documents showing waiver	State contends the record shows waiver; trial court findings conflict with the record
Whether the trial court's factual findings are entitled to deference under Guzman	Applicant relies on his live testimony and trial court's factual findings	State argues findings are contradicted by the plea-colloquy and written waivers in the record, so Guzman deference should not apply	State argues de novo review required for unsupported findings; trial court abused discretion
Whether any statutory error rises to constitutional magnitude to invalidate the plea	Applicant treats statutory defects as rendering plea involuntary under due process	State argues these are statutory rights only and not grounds for federal constitutional habeas relief	State argues statutory-only defects do not provide cognizable habeas relief; reversal of trial court's order is warranted

Key Cases Cited

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court's factual findings in article 11.072 habeas proceedings)
Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (applying Guzman to article 11.072 cases)
Ex parte Graves, 70 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limits collateral review to constitutional or jurisdictional defects)
Ex parte Ducthover, 779 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (statutory and state-constitutional claims not cognizable on federal habeas collateral attack)
Marin v. State, 891 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (10-day preparation right is waivable-only and must be expressly waived)
Ex Parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (burden on applicant in collateral attack to prove facts entitling relief)
Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (conclusions of law reviewed de novo)