History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rafael Hernandez-Prado v. State
03-15-00290-CR
Tex. App.
Sep 30, 2015
Check Treatment
Case Information

*0 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/30/2015 7:42:42 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 03-15-00290-CR 7177140 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/30/2015 7:42:42 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-15-00290-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS EX PARTE:

RAFEAL HERNANDEZ-PRADO Appeal from the 33 rd Judicial District Court

Cause No. 9767A

Burnet County, Texas

The Honorable J. Allan Garret, Judge Presiding APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ABATE

Gary E. Prust

State Bar No. 24056166 1607 Nueces Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 469-0092

Fax: (512) 469-9102

gary@prustlaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Motion to Abate Page 1 of 6

Ex Parte Hernandez-Prado

Appellate Cause No. 03-15-00290-CR

ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED

APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO ABATE

Appellant, Rafeal Hernandez-Prado, file this, his “Motion to Abate” and in

support thereof shows as follows.

I.

1. Appellant's was placed on deferred adjudication probation on October 13,

2003. The record shows court-appointed counsel translated the plea of guilty and

the admonitions, waivers, judicial confession, and written plea of guilty. The

record also shows there was an immigration hold in 2003.

2. Thereafter, the State filed a Request to Adjudicate October 1, 2013 and a

capias was issued the following day. The Request alleged Appellant violated the

terms of his probation by failing to report to the probation department as directed,

by failing to remain in “Juanagato, Mexico”, failing to notify the probation officer

of a change of address or employment, by failing to complete community service

hours, by failing to pay various fines and costs, failing to complete psychiatric or

psychological testing within 90 days of the probation date, failing to attend

psychiatric or psychological counseling as directed, failing to submit a blood

sample to the Texas Department of Public Safety, and failing to submit to

polygraph testing as directed. See Exhibit A.

Motion to Abate Page 2 of 6

Ex Parte Hernandez-Prado

Appellate Cause No. 03-15-00290-CR

3. Appellant then filed an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Art.

11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure January 7, 2015. Exhibit B. In it,

Appellant averred the terms and conditions of community supervision were not

explained in a manner or language in which he could comprehend the requirements

before he entered his plea. Further, Appellant requested to withdraw the underlying

plea and have the terms of the plea agreement explained on the record by a

certified interpreter before deciding whether to accept the plea or continue to

negotiate with the State.

Appellant prayed the court to review the proceedings and determine whether

Appellant was properly educated about the terms and conditions of his plea

agreement, the consequences of violating community supervision, any obligations

to follow directions of the community supervision department, and determine

whether the language barrier prohibited him from understanding the criminal

proceedings he initially faced.

4. Appellant filed a motion to quash and exception to the form of the request to

adjudicate March 25, 2015. The motion to quash, writ of habeas corpus, and

request to adjudicate were heard March 25, 2015. See IV RR 1, et seq .

5. In two separate orders, the motion to quash and the application for writ of

habeas corpus were each denied. See Exhibit C. Each order is file stamped April

30, 2015. The order denying the application for writ of habeas corpus is dated

Motion to Abate Page 3 of 6

Ex Parte Hernandez-Prado

Appellate Cause No. 03-15-00290-CR

March 25, 2015.

6. The order denying the writ of habeas corpus does not say the application is

frivolous on its face, nor does it include written findings of fact or conclusions of

law. The court stated at the sentencing on May 5, 2015 as follows, “[T]he Court –

having taken [the request to adjudicate and application for writ of habeas corpus]

under advisement and reviewed defense counsel’s writ and pleadings and review of

the evidence before the Court, the Court finds that the Defendant did violate

Probation Terms and Conditions 5, 11, and 13, and the Sex Offender Supplement

Probation Terms and Conditions 1, 2, 8, and 9.” V RR 5. The trial court then

assessed Appellant’s punishment at fifteen years’ confinement and no fine. Id .;

Exhibit D.

7. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, in article 11.072, § 7(a) states that if

the court determines from the application that the applicant is not entitle to any

relief, the court shall enter a written order denying it as frivolous. In all other such

cases, “the court shall enter a written order including findings of fact and

conclusions of law.” Id .

8. After a review of the record, Appellant has not been able to find any written

findings of fact and conclusions of law nor any order denying the application for

the writ as frivolous.

9. This cause should be returned to the trial court for the entry of written

Motion to Abate Page 4 of 6

Ex Parte Hernandez-Prado

Appellate Cause No. 03-15-00290-CR

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ex Parte Jones , 367 S.W.3d 696, 697

(Tex.App. – Texarkana 2012, no pet.); Ex Parte Enriquez , 227 S.W.3d 779

(Tex.App. – El Paso 2005, pet. ref’d) (The appellate court abated the appeal and

ordered the trial court to clarify its written order finding the Applicant manifestly

not entitled to relief and denying the writ. Following the word “denied”, the trial

court struck through type-written portions of the prepared order which read “as

frivolous”.); see also Ex Parte Ali , No. 03-10-00207-CR (Tex.App. – Austin 2010,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

10. Accordingly, Appellant’s counsel request this Court abate this appeal and

enter and order directing the trial court to enter written findings of fact and

conclusions of law in accordance with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 § 7(a)

(West 2015).

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gary E. Prust

Gary E. Prust

SBN 24056166

1607 Nueces Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 469-0092

Fax: (512) 469-9102

gary@prustlaw.com

Attorney for Appellant

Motion to Abate Page 5 of 6

Ex Parte Hernandez-Prado

Appellate Cause No. 03-15-00290-CR

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In compliance with Rule 9.5(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

the undersigned attorney certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Motion was served upon Mr. Gary Bunyard with the 33 rd and 424 th Judicial District Attorney’s Office on this 30 th day of September, 2015 via electronic transmission

through efiletexas.gov.

/s/ Gary Prust

Gary E. Prust

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P ROC . 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify this brief contains

805 words. This is a computer-generated document created in Microsoft word,

using 14-point typeface. In making this this certificate, I rely on the word county

provided by the software use to prepare the document.

/s/ Gary Prust

Gary E. Prust

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

In compliance with Rule 10.1(a)(5) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, the undersigned attorney certifies he conferred with Mr. Gary Bunyard

of the 33rd and 424th District Attorney’s Office on this 30 th day of September,

2015, and opposing counsel neither joins nor opposes this motion.

/s/ Gary Prust

Gary E. Prust

Motion to Abate Page 6 of 6

Ex Parte Hernandez-Prado

Appellate Cause No. 03-15-00290-CR

N0.9767

THE STATE OF TEXAS X IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

vs. y TI<'VA"

RAFAELHERNANDEbPRADO X 33RD/424THJUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE'S REOPEST FOR ADJUDICATION : OJ<' c;: ATI) l'OIJJ{T:

TUTHE tARU•;J

NOW COMES the STATE OF TEXAS, represented herein by her Assistant District

A l lU <lUJI l lll Ult: <lUUVt:

and numbered cause and for grounds therefor would show that the defendant was placed on

probation for a period ofTEN (10) years, on OCTOBER 10, 2013, for the offense of BURGLARY

.. • 1«111101

IIITT A

and conditions were that the defendant: . :. l the~ ' · · • r~ r c

5. nnitv

and ion.• ~ RTIRNFT . T"x n• ancl •rpnnrt

at such other times and in such manner as directed by the Court or the Probation

Officer.

9. Remain within the limits of JUANAGATO. MEXICO unless given permission

oy me • · to leave such

11. Notify the Probation Officer of any change of address or employment within 5 days

of such change.

13. Participate and work, without compensation, ten hours per month in a community

service program or task as directed by the Probation Officer for a total of 7 50

hours.

"' . ....

1A Pou thP fnll .. : .. , . D 'Q C orrectmns epartment:

a. Court costs in the amount of$ 203.00 due in full NOVE~J ~

I* ~\1--------loj Exhibit A

o. rrooatwn ree of l; ~(] 00 each month during your probation period

beginning NOVEMBER 10. 2003 .

c. Restitution/Reparation in the amount of $-0- at the rate of: ~ ... "' . . .... -

d. Fine in the amount of $ 2000.00 at the rate of $ 30.00 per month

beginning NOVEMBER 10. 2003.

e. Court ' .. 'fppo in thP · nf '1: .1 ~{).11{) ot thP ~~· . <1: 1 {) {){) "nrm ' " ~""'' . r

f. Crime Stoppers fee to the BURNET Crime Stoppers Program in the

amount of$ 50.00 at the rate of:$ 5.00 per month beginning NOVEMBER

10,2003.

SO SUPPLEMENT

PROBATION TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SEX OFFENDERS

1. Undergo psychiatric and/or psychological testing and evaluation by a licensed sex

orrenaer prov1aer, w1mm \10 days of probatwn date as directed by the Probation

Otticer and pay the cost of same. ! ' l !

2. Attend, participate and complete a psychiatric and/or psychological counseling ' ;

program, with a licensed sex offender provider, as directed by the Probation Officer . . . . . ,, ~· .~ :-oy uuu I'"] u•~ ~vo• v• o~m, l 111 >il1U UlllU ' • UIC >CA p•vuuo , !

8. Submit to a blood sample or other specimen to the Department of Public Safety under ! • r Sub-chapter G, Chapter 411, Government Code, for the purpose of creating a DNA ! · ' and nav cost nf thP ""'"" ~ I

9. Submit a polygraph testing as directed by the Community Supervision Officer or the

therapist and pay cost of the same. l • !

t

' j I

The defendant, while on Probation, committed the following violations:

! {. !

5. The Defendant failed to report in person to the Probation Officer of the Community ~ ;:,uperv!s!on ana corrections Department of H . { ounty, Texas, and :T i" tnereatter report at such other times and in such manner as directed by the Court or ! f t the Probation Officer. \ ~ t

•· I

Exhibit A !' ' t·,

!:' i f ~ ~ *9 111e ue.enuanc rauea to remam within the limits of JUANAGATO. MEXICO

j ,

unless given permission by the Probation Officer to leave such limits. Defendant

returned to the United States without permission. Defendant received a ticket for no

seat belt on December 18, 2007, by the Texas Highway Patrol in Burnet County,

"''

11. The Defendant failed to notify the Probation Officer that he had returned to the

United States of America.

13. The Defendant failed to participate and work, without compensation, ten hours per

month in a community service program or task as directed by the Probation Officer

for a total of 750 hours. : tn •nil th•n ~h t~ ,...

14. The Defendant failed to oav the foil --~

Supervision and Corrections Department:

a. Court costs in the amount of$ 203.00 due in full NOVEMBER 10. 2003. u. 1ne ue.enoant IS l.lJlJ_ oelinquent in Probation fees. ' l i l

d. The Defendant is $2000.00 delinquent in his Fine. i J I t e. The Defendant is $450.00 delinquent in Court appointed attorney fees~

.. ... ~ I " 01. ;. "'.;v.vvu<ainquem m nurneL LOUnty Lnme :stoppers ree. I

SO SUPPLEMENT ~

PROBATION TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SEX OFFENDERS I ... r~ _, -'

_l Th" "·"· ·" '' f'oa ,.J evaluation by a licensed sex offe~de; provider, within 90 days of probation dat;;~ [i ' r directed by the Probation Officer and pay the cost of same. t • ' ,-

2. The Defendant failed to attend, _ll_articipate and com_lliete a osvchiatrk ,,!/, .. psychological counselim! oro~rram with a I' l•ex " , · "· •• ·

by the Probation Officer and pay the cost of same. Remain in said program until

successfully discharged by the sex offender provider.

!

8. ~ The Defendant failed to submit to a blood sample or other specimen to the ' >'.

~_"!':':'_ uu~n, 01 .<'UDIIC .:sarery unoer .:>Ub-cnapter~pter 411' Government Code, l t

ror me purpose ot creatmg a DNA recording and pay cost of the same. I

~ f ' 1

Exhibit A

l ' ' • i *10 • "" ue.enuan, •alleu to suom1t a polygraph testing as directed by the Community 7o

Supervision Officer or the therapist and pay cost of the same.

Said violations of the law constitute violations of the probation in this cause and were

committed after the time the Order Deferring Adjudication was entered in this cause.

WHER_!:ltl PR FJ\KTCt:IC ......... =·~ .c ·- .-·-J" - ·- '

PRADO, Defendant herein, be cited to appear before this Honorable Court at a time and place

specified by this Court to show cause, if any he have, why aili_udication her in_tbk

cause should not be had; and that upon final hearing the probation heretofore given to this Defendant

should be in all things be revoked and Judgment and Sentence entered and that the said RAFAEL ------

··-· , '"' colllmeu m me cotate__t:_emtentiary_tor a_l)_eriod to be determined bY_the

I I Court and that the Clerk of this Court be Ordered and authorized to issue all necessary papers I ; ' !

including Judgment, Sentence and Commitment the same as if adjudication had not been deferred i -·-----._ ' .

" .t. ._], .~ ._], ~~ '""' ""'~ ~oB u mo c""' =Y dhtt<. ' ~

I ' ! A ' fnr t~ <:t<rn

33rd Judicial District f f l M v ' t t· Exhibit A I

t I ' ~ 1\ I ~ ' f· ,, f ;;· ~ *11 • •

CAUSE NO. 9767 § IN THE 33RD DISTRICT

EX PARTE BURNET COUNTY,

RAFEAL HERNANDEZ-PRADO

TEXAS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

record EDDIE G SHELL, files this application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

Article 11.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Texas Constitution, Article

I.

Adjudication, a two thousand dollar ($2,000) fme and court cost. The applicant was

represented by Eduardo Arredondo. All terms and conditions of the deferred adjudication

understand said terms and conditions. Applicant only speaks Spanish and it is applicant's

position that he was not appropriately admonished and educated about the terms and

conditions of his before the contends that all

Therefore, applicant's plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally.

pleas entered in the underlying offense. Specifically, applicant· request that the court

permit him to have the full terms and conditions of the underlying plea bargain explained

to him on the record by a certified interpreter so that he may decide whether or not to

Exhibit B

[81]

..

• •

' '

accept the plea bargain or continue to negotiate with the prosecution.

Applicant would ask the court to review the underlying offense and to carefully scrutinize ...... ,_ ··- . •- ·' ••L ' ' "'· v• uv• ""' ,.....,

(a) The terms and conditions of his plea bargain

(b) The consequences for violating his probation. ..

, 1U •vuv" w,;; 'UVlll Ut,;; r u,;;pa~ """"'·

~--~ H!O

(d) His ability to understand the criminal proceedings he initially faced given the

language barrier.

II.

Applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief if they were either confmed" or

"restrained" unlawfully at the time he applied for relief. State v. Collazo, 264 S.W.3d 121,

126 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.], pet. refd). The terms "confinement" and "restraint"

include release on community supervision or any other restraint on personal liberty. Ex

garte Davis, 748 S. W.2d 555, 557 (Tex. AI1I1.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, I!S<t. ref d). Lack·

of physical confinement does not preclude an applicant from seeking relief or deprive a

trial court of iurisdiction from hearimr his nlea. Ex narte Schmidt 109 S. W.3d 480 482- . .

11-' tiex. 1. nm. ADD. LIJ\J , 1. mmvtauaJs wno nave comp1eu:a meu u:rm or co

supervision may bring a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure, art. 11.072. Ex Parte Enriquez, 227 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. App.-El Paso

LUU:J, pel. rei 0).

A showing of collateral legal consequences is sufficient to show that an applicant

IS "confined." See Collazo, 264 S.W.3d at 126-27. Collateral legal consequences , , ~ , N ~ ~ . ,,.. • ., v""u llVlH I> p11Ul - r "'""

748 S.W.2d at 557; Le v. State, 300 S.W.3d 324, 326-27 (Tex. AI1I1.-Houston [14th

Dist.] 2009, no Q!;:!.); Ex parte Wolf, 296 S.W.3d 160, 166-167 (Tex. App.-Houston

L'"'"' Lll>l.J .<.VV::T, P"'· '"'UJ. 11 " " ' m<~y ouu,;;1 '"!>"'

from his felony conviction, a trial court has jurisdiction to consider his application for

habeas relief. Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d at 483. Applicant's liberties are restrained as defined

in Article 11.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which defines restraint as:

Exhibit B

[82] *13 •

~---- • ' ' •

•

''the kind of control which one person exercises over another, not to confine him . . . . .. •v . mm~ • .J .L• L• •L '" •J.. 'J y ' " ' ' " " " lllllll.l>,

person claiming such right."

TTY ~··

Applicant prays that the court grant this post conviction writ of habeas corpus and

that the conviction in the above entitled and numbered cause be set aside.

Resnectfullv Submitted

EddieGSheU

Shell & Shell

State Bar Number: 18191650

ovvv 1'1. nwy .:o [1]

Marble .l'alls, Texas toO:l'l

(830)798-1690 telephone -- (830)798-0328 telecopier ;.--~-
n.,..7 -.y ~"'" u. " " " " I

Attorney for Applicant I Exhibit B

[83] *14 -----

• • ' • '

• .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Application for Post

Conviction Writ of Habeas Co !'{JUS was served on the prosecuting attorney via facsimile

(512) 756-8572 on tbis the ~ davof Tr\'(\ 1 lC'I ( { " ....... 2015.

~ -~ ~ ~ Edffie G Shell" ~ Exhibit B

[84]

• • • ' . '

•

STATE OF TEXAS §

COUNTY OF BURNET §

AFFIDAVIT

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Eddie G Shell

a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to him, upon his

uam, m: stau:u uu: -~·

"My name is Eddie G Shell, and I am capable of making this affidavit and the

IaclS StaLC:u in mis auluavit art: wimin my persOili11 I<.nO • WIU WC: UUC: WIU "v"""'· I

have read the foregoing Application for Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus and all

facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge." ........ ~ -

......--::

Eddie G Shell \

Sworn and Subscribed before me on this the Olffi day of , 2015 .

~~b_(~ . ~ • (\ 1"\

...c:::::._

{ ~ u n rYJ \ 1 o HJI.l J'\. -

~· SIIBRINA LYNN WILLS Notary Public, State ofTexas ~ 'if) My commlsaiOn Expires f/(:~ Notary PuDIIc. Stote 01 Texos IIUQUII 21. 2011

;o;j~·

Exhibit B *

w "'

I N0.9767f-\

EX PARTE § IN THE 33rd DISTRICT COURT

§

vs. § OF

§

RAFEALHERNANDEZ-PRADO § BURNETCOUNTY,TEXAS /

On tJ7 ·v., .~ , 2015, came on to be considered the Defendant's Application for

Post Conviction of Writ of Habeas Corpus in the above styled and numbered cause, and said .. L

A -L .r-..... DENIE9J

(GRANTED) --- I v 7/7.5 I '/)

Signed on ,

J-~Aft--

J IIJUF\PRES.

I I ; ··~,, ~ jjY,if.Q'-(Y·, "< .. c~- ~ 3 APR 3 0 2015 F FILED \';', <>; * 4'-~~~ iJ ~~ AM PI~ Exhibit C ~cou~ I

5 hearing.

MR. CROWTHER: Frank Randolph.

THE COURT: Trooper Randolph. Okay. Thank you.

MR. SHELL: Pardon me.

THE COURT: And then at that hearing there was a

motion -- there was a writ of habeas corpus. There was

obviously the State's motion to adjudicate guilt. And there

was one other motion, I think, that was handled by the Court at

the hearing. Since that time, the Court -- having taken it

under advisement and reviewed defense counsel's writ and

pleadings and review of the evidence before the Court, the

Court finds that the Defendant did violate Probation Terms and

Conditions 5, 11, and 13, and the Sex Offender Supplement

Probation Terms and Conditions 1, 2, 8, and 9.

Based on those findings, the Court finds

Mr. Hernandez-Prado guilty of the first degree felony as pled

in his original plea agreement of burglary of a habitation with

an intent to commit a felony.

The range of punishment was 5 to 99 years. The

Court, having considered all the evidence before the Court,

finds the appropriate punishment to be 15 years in the

Institutional Division of the TDCJ and hereby sentences the

defendant to 15 years in the TDCJ with no fine.

There's court costs of $50 and court-appointed

attorneys fees. STEPHANIE A. LARSEN, CSR, RPR

Exhibit D

Case Details

Case Name: Rafael Hernandez-Prado v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Sep 30, 2015
Docket Number: 03-15-00290-CR
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
Read the detailed case summary
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.