State v. Alfredo Zuniga Gonzalez
13-14-00153-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 3, 2015Background
- Alfredo Zuniga Gonzalez pleaded guilty in two DWI misdemeanor causes after retained counsel (and a substitute attorney standing in) appeared at a 2013 plea hearing; judgments recited that pleas were made freely and voluntarily.
- Sentences of 180 days (suspended) and $1,400 combined fine were imposed and community supervision was granted.
- Gonzalez later filed article 11.072 habeas applications alleging his guilty pleas were unintelligent, unknowing, and involuntary because counsel did not have ten days to prepare as required by article 1.051(e). He did not submit sworn testimony or affidavits in support.
- The trial court granted habeas relief without a hearing, found Gonzalez did not waive the 10‑day period, and set aside the guilty pleas and judgments.
- The State appealed, arguing the record did not support the trial court’s factual findings, article 1.051(e) applies only to appointed counsel (not retained counsel), and statutory violations are not cognizable on collateral habeas review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gonzalez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting habeas relief setting aside guilty pleas | Trial court abused discretion because record does not support finding pleas were unintelligent, unknowing, involuntary | Pleas were involuntary because counsel lacked 10 days to prepare and defendant did not waive the period | Reversed: trial court abused discretion and guilty pleas reinstated |
| Whether art. 1.051(e)’s 10‑day preparation requirement applies | Applies only to appointed counsel; thus not implicated here | Article 1.051(e) was violated when substitute counsel appeared without 10 days to prepare | Court held art. 1.051(e) does not apply to retained counsel and statutory violations are not grounds for collateral relief |
| Whether sworn pleadings suffice to rebut judgment recitals that plea was voluntary | Written judgment recitals are presumed correct absent competent contrary evidence | Trial court relied on pleadings and its own finding to set aside plea | Court held sworn pleadings alone are inadequate; no competent evidence rebutted voluntariness recitals |
| Whether statutory violation (art. 1.051(e)) is cognizable on collateral habeas | Statutory or rule violations are not cognizable on post‑conviction habeas unless constitutional or jurisdictional | Violation undermined voluntariness of plea, warranting relief | Court held non‑constitutional statutory violations cannot support art. 11.072 habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (guilty plea waives certain constitutional rights; plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
- Guerrero v. State, 400 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (recitals in judgment are presumed correct and binding absent direct proof they are false)
- Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate review of article 11.072 rulings: defer to habeas court’s factual findings absent abuse of discretion)
- Marin v. State, 891 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (article 1.051(e) ten‑day rule aims to ensure appointed counsel are prepared)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (standard for determining validity of plea in ineffective‑assistance context — plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
- Groves v. State, 837 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate courts will not defer to trial court findings unsupported by the record)