Ricardo Ulloa v. State, 370 S.W.3d 766

Ulloa pleaded no contest to aggravated sexual assault and received eight years’ deferred adjudication probation with sex-offender counseling requirements.
Counsel and Ulloa disagreed about admitting guilt; Ulloa was discharged from counseling for not admitting guilt, and probation was later modified to a different program but Ulloa again refused admission and was discharged.
Ulloa fled to Columbus, Ohio, changing his name; the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt (begun May 1997, amended 2000) alleging probation violations, including failure to register as a sex offender.
Ulloa was arrested on October 18, 2009; he then moved to withdraw his no contest plea and filed a habeas corpus application, claiming the plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court denied both motions and later sentenced Ulloa to fifteen years’ imprisonment following guilt adjudication.
The court affirmed, ruling Ulloa’s plea was voluntary and his counsel’s performance adequate; Ulloa’s direct-appeal rights regarding withdrawal of plea were barred by Manuel, so the habeas appeal proceeded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the plea withdrawal denial properly denied as involuntary?	Ulloa, via Contreras, alleged ineffective counsel rendered plea involuntary.	Contreras testified he explained probation consequences and did not tell Ulloa a plea equals not guilty; the court could credit counsel’s explanation and Ulloa’s credibility.	denial affirmed; the plea voluntary and counsel effective
Was the habeas relief properly denied given ineffective assistance claim?	But-for counsel’s errors, Ulloa would have gone to trial; the record shows failure to inform about sex-offender counseling consequences.	Trial court properly weighed credibility; Contreras testified to informing Ulloa of counseling ramifications; no abuse of discretion.	Habeas relief denied; no abuse of discretion
Can Ulloa challenge the plea withdrawal on direct appeal?	N/A/Not necessary; Ulloa should be entitled to review	Manuel bars direct appeal of withdrawal claims filed after the deferred adjudication; not timely and thus not reviewable on direct appeal	Direct appeal barred; proceed via habeas relief

Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (bars direct appeal from deferred-adjudication plea challenges after time for motion to withdraw lapses)
Hanson v. State, 11 S.W.3d 285 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (limits direct appeal timing for plea-related challenges)
Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (burden in habeas review; preponderance standard; credibility matters)
Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (accepts trial-court findings on habeas facts)
Ex parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (plea-counsel effectiveness standards in habeas)
Ex parte Burns, 601 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (ineffective assistance can render a plea involuntary)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (but-for test for guilty-plea voluntariness with counsel error)