Tutton, Ex Parte Micah, PD-1121-15

Background

In 2010 Micah Tutton pleaded guilty in Ellis County to failing to comply with sex-offender registration requirements and received 5 years’ community supervision; he later learned he may never have been required to register.
Tutton filed an Article 11.072 habeas application (2014) alleging actual innocence, involuntary plea, and ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to investigate whether he was required to register.
The State argued Tutton was required to register because of a Johnson County juvenile adjudication and a Texas Youth Commission (TYC) determination; it relied in part on an Attorney General opinion and an administrative rule.
The trial court denied Tutton’s habeas application, adopting the State’s reasoning and finding Tutton failed to prove facts entitling him to relief; it also denied Tutton’s subsequent supplemental filing and rehearing request.
The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Tutton’s appellate arguments did not comport with the habeas application (preservation issue) and (2) critical documents (Johnson County judgment and TYC discharge) were not in the habeas record, so the trial court was constrained to deny relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation: Must appellant anticipate district court’s reasoning to preserve claim?	Tutton: No — his habeas application sufficiently raised innocence, involuntariness, and ineffective assistance; he need not predict the trial court’s reliance on an administrative rule and Attorney General opinion.	State/Ct. of Appeals: Appellate complaints must comport with the arguments and evidence presented to the trial court; new legal theory on appeal was not preserved.	Held for State: appellate issues did not comport with habeas application, so not preserved.
Evidentiary record: Were necessary documents before the habeas court?	Tutton: The record (including TYC discharge and Johnson County adjudication) and later supplemental filings placed the facts before the court; denial was improper.	State/Ct. of Appeals: The key documents showing Johnson County adjudication and TYC discharge were not in the habeas record when the court ruled, so applicant failed to prove entitlement to relief.	Held for State: record lacked critical documents; trial court’s denial was not an abuse of discretion.
Sufficiency of habeas proof to show he was not required to register	Tutton: If the administrative rule is invalid and TYC lacked authority, then he was not required to register, making his plea involuntary and counsel ineffective.	State: Even accepting Tutton’s later submissions, he did not prove facts entitling him to relief; trial court findings stand.	Held for State: applicant did not meet burden by a preponderance in the record presented.
Standard of review: Deference to trial court credibility findings	Tutton: Trial court misapplied law and ignored evidence; appellate review should consider legal error.	State/Ct.: Habeas courts are sole factfinders in Article 11.072, and appellate review gives deference to trial-court factual findings and credibility determinations.	Held for State: abuse-of-discretion standard applied; appellate court deferred to trial court.

Key Cases Cited

Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (describing minimal Rule 33.1 preservation requirements)
Resendez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discussion of preservation standards and appellate review)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for habeas relief)
Ex parte Thomas, 906 S.W.2d 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (applicant’s burden in habeas proceedings)
Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (review deference to habeas-court rulings)
Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (preservation requires specific complaint and ruling)