Flores, Daniel, WR-83,601-01

Applicant Daniel Flores pleaded guilty to stalking under a plea agreement and received two years’ deferred adjudication; he was later adjudicated guilty and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
Flores did not appeal his conviction and later filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus claiming his guilty plea was involuntary.
Flores asserted he would have accepted a 30-day county jail plea if counsel had informed him he would receive credit for 27 days already served.
On remand, the trial court found the State never offered 30 days in county jail, and counsel’s affidavit stated Flores preferred deferred adjudication because he was in college and did not want a conviction.
The trial court concluded Flores knowingly made false statements in his application and abused the writ; the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, denied relief, and cited him for abuse of the writ.
The Court barred the clerk from accepting future applications on this conviction unless Flores shows the claims were not previously raised and could not have been previously presented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was involuntary because counsel failed to advise Flores he’d get 27 days’ credit	Flores: would have taken 30-day county-jail plea if told of 27 days’ credit	Trial court/counsel: Flores rejected other offers because he wanted deferred adjudication to avoid a conviction while in college	Court held Flores’ assertion was false and found abuse of the writ; denied relief
Whether Flores made false statements in his habeas application	Flores: asserted factual history supporting his involuntary-plea claim	Trial court/counsel: Flores told judge he declined 30 days out of fear of jail and desire to keep record clean; counsel’s affidavit corroborates this	Court held Flores knowingly misrepresented facts and abused the writ
Whether abuse of the writ permits denial and preclusion of future filings	Flores: sought relief on plea voluntariness	State: urged denial; urged finding of frivolous filing/abuse based on false statements	Court found abuse, deemed filing frivolous, denied relief and cited Flores for abuse
Whether clerk should accept future applications on this conviction	Flores: not addressed effectively in record	Court: requires Flores to show new, previously unraiseable claims before filing again	Court ordered clerk to refuse future filings on this conviction unless Flores satisfies condition stated

Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (procedure for transmitting habeas applications)
Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1963) (abuse of the writ is disfavored)
Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (writ abuse standards)
Ex parte Gaither, 387 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (false statements can constitute abuse of the writ)
Ex parte Jones, 97 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (consequences of abuse of writ and waiver)
Middaugh v. State, 683 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (procedural bars related to writ abuse)
Ex parte Emmons, 660 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (procedural consequences of frivolous habeas filings)
Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (conditions for accepting future applications)