Medrano, Arturo Solorzano, WR-82,696-01

Applicant Arturo Medrano filed a state post-conviction habeas petition challenging his conviction and punishment based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate/prepare, failure to explain charges, failure to advise appellate options).
Procedural posture: Applicant was tried (pleaded not guilty; jury found him guilty), then entered a plea agreement at punishment resulting in a 25‑year sentence; Applicant's direct appeal was dismissed and he sought relief via habeas.
The State opposed relief. The trial court initially recommended denying the writ, finding counsel’s affidavits credible and that Applicant insisted on trial and rejected a plea offer.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for specific findings: whether Applicant pleaded guilty or was found guilty by jury, whether an express appeal waiver exists, and whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial.
On remand the trial court found Applicant was found guilty by a jury, later entered a plea bargain at punishment, was admonished and consented to waive appeal, and again concluded Applicant failed to prove ineffective assistance.
Applicant objects: he argues the record contains no express written waiver of appeal as required by Ex Parte Delaney, contends counsel misadvised him about appellate rights and parole eligibility, and contends the 25‑year no‑parole sentence is illegal under § 21.02(h), seeking an out‑of‑time appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate/prepare	Medrano: counsel failed to investigate/prepare, meeting Strickland deficiency prong	State/Trial Ct: counsel’s affidavits are credible; performance was reasonable	Trial court held no ineffective assistance proven on remand
Whether counsel failed to explain nature of charges	Medrano: counsel did not properly explain charges and options	State/Trial Ct: counsel communicated (fluent Spanish) and admonitions occurred	Trial court held explanation/communication adequate
Whether counsel failed to advise appellate options and caused loss of appeal (right to first appeal)	Medrano: counsel misinformed him about appealability and parole, causing dismissal of direct appeal and prejudice	State/Trial Ct: Applicant waived appeal after admonishment and consent on record; no deficient performance shown	Trial court found Applicant waived appeal and no Strickland prejudice; Applicant disputes adequacy of waiver evidence
Legality of 25‑year no‑parole sentence	Medrano: sentence is illegal under Texas Penal Code § 21.02(h); counsel encouraged imposition of illegal sentence	State/Trial Ct: sentence imposed following plea bargain at punishment; no ineffective assistance proven	Trial court did not order resentencing; Applicant seeks reversal and new punishment hearing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance extends to first appeal as of right)
Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (counsel must protect appellate rights; failure can warrant out‑of‑time appeal)
Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (absence of an express waiver in the record renders claimed waiver ineffective)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate‑rights preservation obligations of counsel)
Guajardo v. State, 109 S.W.3d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (counsel’s duty to ensure a sufficient record for appeal)