Islas, Brandon AKA Islas, Brandon Cary
WR-84,233-01
Tex. App.Nov 30, 2015Background
- Applicant Brandon Islas (pro se) filed a reply to the State's habeas answer and challenges the State's proposed findings and conclusions, seeking appointment of counsel and further fact-finding.
- Central factual/legal issues: (1) whether a 1993 DWI judgment introduced by the State was a final conviction sufficient to satisfy jurisdictional enhancement for felony DWI, and (2) whether the blood specimen was obtained and admitted in violation of the Fourth Amendment under Missouri v. McNeely.
- At trial the State introduced a certified copy of an unsigned, undated judgment of probation for the 1993 DWI; Islas alleges that document is defective and raises affirmative evidence of nonfinality, yet his trial counsel advised him to stipulate to the prior conviction’s finality.
- Blood evidence: a blood sample was collected without a warrant or consent while Islas was in custody; the prosecutor elicited testimony that mischaracterized the authorization for collection. Islas contends McNeely (decided while his appeal was pending) would render the collection/admission unconstitutional and would have required reversal.
- Islas asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failed investigation, no opening statement, poor closings, failure to object to false testimony, erroneous stipulation on finality) and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (failure to raise the finality/jurisdiction and McNeely issues), seeking vacatur or remand for further habeas factfinding and affidavits from counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Islas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held / Disposition in this filing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of 1993 DWI used to enhance to felony | The certified judgment introduced was unsigned/undated and affirmative evidence of nonfinality; trial counsel’s advice to stipulate was ineffective and did not cure lack of proof of finality | State contends stipulation waived challenge and disposes of the finality issue | No final adjudication here; Islas seeks remand/vacatur and argues habeas court erred if it failed to require counsel response and further fact-finding |
| Admissibility of blood under McNeely | Blood drawn without warrant/consent; McNeely (decided while appeal pending) requires exclusion absent exigent circumstances; evidence was outcome-determinative | State argues retroactive application of McNeely was unclear and characterizes claim as sufficiency or improperly raised | No final ruling in this reply; Islas argues McNeely should apply retroactively to his appeal and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise it |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (investigation, stipulation, objections, openings/closings) | Counsel failed to investigate, failed to object to false testimony, advised stipulation to defective conviction, waived opening and made harmful closings — cumulatively or singly prejudicial under Strickland | State contends some conduct may be strategic and that issues were litigated on direct appeal or are not cognizable | Islas requests further factfinding, counsel affidavits, and vacatur; no final court resolution in this filing |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Appellate counsel failed to raise meritorious claims (defective 1993 judgment finality; McNeely challenge), depriving Islas of meaningful appeal | State offered proposed findings but did not fully address appellate counsel effectiveness; argues uncertainty re: McNeely retroactivity | Islas alleges prejudice (probability of different outcome) and asks for counsel response and relief; no final court adjudication here |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeely v. Missouri, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (warrant required for nonconsensual blood draw absent exigent circumstances; decision applied to DWI blood-draw admissibility)
- Robles v. State, 85 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. Crim. App.) (stipulation to prior conviction does not necessarily satisfy State's burden to prove finality)
- Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App.) (illegal sentence and jurisdictional challenges cognizable in habeas)
- Fletcher v. State, 214 S.W.3d 5 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defective documentary proof of prior conviction can preclude use as enhancement; remedy and review standards)
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App.) (stipulations as evidence and finality issues)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. Crim. App.) (effective assistance requires knowledge of well-defined legal propositions and investigation)