Robert Martinez v. State
04-14-00555-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- Robert Martinez filed a pro se habeas application under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 challenging two 1983 and 1986 misdemeanor DWI convictions as collateral consequences to a pending felony DWI-3rd charge.
- Martinez sought relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and other grounds, and explicitly framed his petition as attacking a conviction that resulted in community supervision.
- Trial court found Martinez was placed on two years’ probation for Cause No. 307125 in 1983, probation was revoked on January 9, 1986, and he was sentenced to 10 days in jail (to run concurrently with Cause No. 319377).
- Cause No. 319377 (1986) resulted in a 10-day jail sentence and a $100 fine; Martinez was never granted probation in that cause.
- Trial court denied relief because Martinez was not on community supervision at the time he filed the application and his probation had been revoked; only persons currently on or who completed unrevoked community supervision may use art. 11.072.
- Martinez argued on appeal the petition should be treated as an art. 11.09 habeas application, but he did not raise that argument below and his pleading expressly invoked art. 11.072.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. 11.072 applies when probation was revoked before filing | Martinez: his application should be considered (or recharacterized) to reach merits; original filing challenges convictions used as collateral consequence | State/Trial Court: art. 11.072 applies only to persons on community supervision or who completed unrevoked supervision; Martinez’s probation was revoked | Court: art. 11.072 does not apply because probation was revoked; denial affirmed |
| Whether court should recharacterize petition as art. 11.09 | Martinez: court should "look past the label" and treat petition as art. 11.09 (misdemeanor habeas) | State: Martinez did not raise this below; petition expressly seeks relief under art. 11.072 | Court: forfeited (not raised below) and pleading language contradicts recharacterization; argument rejected |
| Standard of review for habeas application denial | Martinez: N/A (challenges denial) | State: trial court factual findings entitled to deference | Court: abuse-of-discretion review; defer to factual findings and credibility-based rulings; no abuse found |
| Proper venue / filing court for art. 11.072 application | Martinez: filed in County Court No. 5 where community supervision was imposed | State: procedural requirements met but substantive eligibility lacking due to revocation | Court: venue was correct but statutory eligibility lacking; application properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for habeas rulings)
- Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (deference to trial-court factual findings and credibility-based mixed questions)
- Ex parte Glass, 203 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (art. 11.072 applies to persons on supervision or who completed unrevoked supervision)
- State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (art. 11.072 is the exclusive means to invoke original habeas jurisdiction for persons serving or having completed community supervision)