Rafael Hernandez-Prado v. State, 03-15-00290-CR

Background

Hernandez-Prado pleaded guilty and received deferred adjudication probation in 2003 for burglary; the record shows court‑appointed counsel translated plea-related admonitions into Spanish and there was an immigration hold.
The State filed a Request to Adjudicate in October 2013, alleging multiple probation violations (failing to report, leaving Mexico without permission, failing to notify probation officer, unpaid fines/fees, failure to complete community service, failure to undergo testing/counseling, failure to submit DNA and polygraph).
Hernandez‑Prado filed an Art. 11.072 post‑conviction application (Jan. 2015) arguing he did not understand the terms and consequences of his plea because they were not explained to him in a language he comprehended and requesting the plea be withdrawn or the terms re‑explained on the record by a certified interpreter.
At a March 25, 2015 hearing the trial court heard the State’s motion to adjudicate and the Art. 11.072 application; the court later issued written orders denying the motion to quash and the habeas application (file stamped April 30, 2015).
At sentencing on May 5, 2015 the trial court stated it had reviewed the writ and evidence, found Hernandez‑Prado violated specified probation conditions (including sex‑offender conditions), adjudicated guilt, and assessed punishment at 15 years confinement.
Appellant moved in the appellate court to abate the appeal and remand for the trial court to enter the written findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Art. 11.072 §7(a), because the denial order on the habeas application did not include findings or a statement that the application was frivolous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea/conditions were explained in a language Hernandez‑Prado understood	Hernandez‑Prado: plea terms and probation conditions were not explained in a comprehensible language; plea not knowing/voluntary	State: court record shows translation by court‑appointed counsel and proceeded with adjudication	Trial court denied habeas and adjudicated guilt; appellate counsel seeks abatement for further findings rather than a direct ruling on adequacy of admonishments
Whether the trial court complied with Art. 11.072 §7(a) when denying the habeas application	Hernandez‑Prado: Art.11.072 requires written findings of fact and conclusions of law unless the application is denied as frivolous; no such findings or a ‘‘frivolous’’ notation appear in the order	State: implicit position that denial was proper (court had taken matter under advisement and reviewed evidence)	Trial court issued a denial order but did not include written findings or label the application frivolous; counsel requests abatement to obtain required written findings
Whether the denial order is administratively sufficient for appellate review	Hernandez‑Prado: absence of findings impedes meaningful appellate review of Art.11.072 ruling	State: contends record and hearing support denial and adjudication	Appellant asked appellate court to abate and remand for written findings; precedent supports abatement when trial court fails to comply with Art.11.072 §7(a)
Validity of adjudication/sentencing given procedural deficiency	Hernandez‑Prado: adjudication and sentence should be vacated or further factfinding required because habeas ruling lacked required findings	State: adjudication based on findings made on the record at sentencing and evidence of probation violations	Trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced to 15 years; appellate remedy sought is abatement and remand for entry of required written findings (not immediate reversal)

Key Cases Cited

Ex Parte Jones, 367 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012) (remand/abatement ordered where trial court’s written order denying Art.11.072 relief did not comply with statutory requirements)
Ex Parte Enriquez, 227 S.W.3d 779 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (appellate court abated appeal and directed trial court to clarify denial order that had struck language labeling the application frivolous)
State v. Collazo, 264 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (post‑conviction habeas under Art.11.072 available to those on community supervision; collateral consequences can constitute restraint)
Ex parte Davis, 748 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (lack of physical confinement does not preclude habeas relief; community supervision can be a restraint)
Le v. State, 300 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (collateral consequences and restraints sufficient to support Art.11.072 jurisdiction)
Ex parte Wolf, 296 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—Houston) (addressing availability of post‑conviction relief for defendants on community supervision)
Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. Crim. App.) (trial court has jurisdiction to consider habeas claims by defendants seeking to withdraw guilty pleas despite lack of physical confinement)