1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 08- 129- CR
E X P AR T E B R UC E P AT T E R S ON

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CRI M I NA LCO URT NO . 8 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l antBr uce Patt er son appeal s t he t r i al cour t ’ s deni al ofr el i ef
re q u e s te d i n h i s a p p l i c a ti o n fo r w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s . W e a ffir m . O n A p r il 1 7 , 1 9 9 6 , a p p e ll a n t p le a d e d n o lo c o n t e n d e r e t o d r iv in g w h ile i n to x i c a te d . T h e tri a l c o u rt i s s u e d a p ro b a ti o n o rd e r m e m o ri a l i z i n g a p p e l l a n t’s bar gai ned

- f or pl ea and or der i ng hi m t o se r ve t w o ye ar s’ pr oba t i on. Appel l ant t im e lyf ile d a m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l a n d a n o t ic e o fa p p e a l.2 ... Pa tters o n v. S ta te, N o . 0 2 -9 6 -0 0 3 4 2 -C R ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h O c t.

1 0 , 1 9 9 6 , n o p e t.)(n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ).

3 ... T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 1 1 .0 7 2 , § 2 (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ); V i l l anueva v. State, 2 5 2 S .W .3 d 3 9 1 , 3 9 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 O n A u g u s t 2 3 , 1 9 9 6 , w h i l e th e a p p e a l w a s p e n d i n g , th e tri a l c o u rt g r a n t e d a p p e lla n t ’s m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l a n d is s u e d a s e c o n d p r o b a t io n o r d e rin t he s a me c a u s e me mo r i a l i z i n g a s e c o n d p l e a a g r e e me n ti n wh i c h a p p el l ant agr eed t o pl ead gui l t y i n exchang e f or t w o year s’ pr obati on. W e t hen di sm i ssed
a p p e lla n t ’s a p p e a l a s m o o t , n o t in g t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rt h a d g r a n t e d a n e w t r ia l. 2 O n A u g u s t 3 1 , 1 9 9 8 , t h e t r ia l c o u rtf o u n d t h a ta p p e lla n ts u c c e s s f u lly
com pl et ed t he t er m s of hi s pr oba t i on a nd di sc har ged ap pel l antf r om pr oba t i on. O n O ct obe r18, 200 7, app el l antf i l ed w i t h t he t r i al co urthi s A ppl i ca t i on and B r i eff orI ssuance ofW r i tofH abe a s C or pus, al l egi ng t hathe w as deni ed ef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o fco uns el , t hathi s f i r stpl ea w as i nvol unt ar y, an d t hatt he tri a l c o u rt l a c k e d j u ri s d i c ti o n to a c c e p t a p p e l l a n t’s s e c o n d p l e a . T h e tri a l c o u rt den i ed t he r equ es t ed r el i ef , an d t hi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. A p e r so n w ho has com pl et ed a t er m of com m uni t y su per vi si on f or a
m i sd em ea nor of f ens e m ay at t ac k t he val i di t y oft he con vi ct i on byap pl yi ng f or
a w ri t of h a b e a s c o rpu s fro m t h e co n v i c ti n g co u rt . The w r i ti ss ues by 34 ... T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 1 1 .0 7 2 , § 4 (a ).
5 ... Id. § 8 ; V

i l l anueva, 252 S. W . 3d a t396.
6 ... Ex parte Cum m i

ns, 1 6 9 S .W .3 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 5 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.); Ex parte Mann, 3 4 S .W .3 d 7 1 6 , 7 1 8 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.).

7 ... Ex p arte Pe ter

so n, 1 1 7 S .W .3 d 8 0 4 , 8 1 9 (T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), over ruled i n parton other

groun ds b y E

x parte Lewi

s, 219 S. W . 3d 335, 371 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); A r reol a v. State, 2 0 7 S .W .3 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 1 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.).

8 ... Peter

so n, 1 1 7 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 9 ; A r reol a, 207 S. W . 3d a t391.
9 ... E xp a rteW

h e eler, 2 0 3 S .W .3 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 5

– 2 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ).

3 o p e r a t i o n o fl a w. T h e c o u rt ’s ru lin g o n t h e a p p lic a t io n f o rt h e w r itis 4 appeal abl e. 5 W e r evi ew a t r i al co urt ’ s dec i si on t o gr antorde ny t he r el i efr equ es t ed on
a w r i tofha bea s cor pus unde r an abu se of di sc r et i on s t and ar d. I n r evi ew i ng 6 t he t r i al co urt ’ s dec i si on, w e r evi ew t he r ec or d i n t he l i ghtm os tf avo r abl e t o t he t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng. W e p a y a l m o s t to ta l d e fe re n c e to th e t r i a l c o u r t’s 7 d e t e r m in a t io n o fh is t o r ic a l f a c t s t h a ta r e s u p p o r t e d b yt h e re c o r d , e s p e c ia lly
w hen t he t r i al co urt ’ s f ac tf i ndi ngs ar e b as ed on a n e val uat i on ofcr edi bi l i t y a nd d e m e a n o r. T h i s d e fere n ti a l rev i e w ap p l i e s e v e n w h e n “n o w i tn e ss e s te sti fy

8
a n d a l l o f th e e v i d e n c e i s s u b m i tte d i n w ri tte n a ffid a v i ts .” I n a habeas 910 ... Ex parte W i l l i am s, 6 5 S .W .3 d 6 5 6 , 6 5 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ).
11 ... A t t h e t im e a p p e lla n t f ile d h is m o t io n f o r n e w t r ia l, t h e a p p lic a b le ru le w as Texas R ul e ofA ppel l at e Pr ocedu r e 31 ( e) . I tpr ovi ded

(1 ) Ti m e to Rule. The cou rts hal l de t er m i ne t he m oti on f or new t r i al w i t hi n 75 day s af t ert he dat e s ent enc e i s i m p o s ed or su sp e n d e d i n o p e n co u rt .

. . . ( 3 ) Fai l ure to Rule. A m ot i on no tt i m el y de t er m i ned by w r i t t en or ders i gne d byt he j udge sh al l be con si der ed ove r r ul ed by o p e r a t io n o fla w u p o n e x p ir a t io n o f t h e p e r io d o f t im e p r e s c r ib e d in sect i on ( e) ( 1) oft hi s r ul e. Tex . R. A pp. P. 31 ( e) ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 86 , super seded 1 99 7) . The r ul e has b e e n re c o d i fi e d a s T e x a s R u l e o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re 2 1 .8 . S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 21. 8. 4 pr oceedi ng, t he appl i canthas t he bur d e n o fpr ovi ng t hatan er r orcont r i buted to h i s c o n v i c ti o n o r pu n i sh m e n t. 10 A ppe l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt h a d n o a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n ta new t r i al , t o t ake a second pl ea, and t o i ssue a s econd pr obati on or der . W e agr ee. Th e o r i g i n a l o r d e ru p o n wh i c h a p p e l l a n tb a s e d h i s mo t i o n f o rn e w t r i a l w as
s i gn e d on Apr i l 17, 1996 . App e l l a ntf i l e d hi s m ot i on f orn e w t r i a l o n M a y 10, 19 96 . O n Jul y 1, 19 9 6 , th e m ot i on w as over r ul ed by op er at i on of l aw . 11 Th us, on A ugu st23 , 19 96 , w hen t he t r i al court g ranted t he m ot i on f ornew t r ia l, t o o k a n e w p le a a n d o r d e r e d t h a ta p p e lla n tb e p la c e d o n p r o b a t io n , itd id
so w i t houtj ur i sd i c t i on. Conse que nt l y, t he se con d pr oba t i on or derw as voi d.12 ... A p l e a o f n o l o c o n ten d e re h a s th e sa m e l e g a l e ffec t a s a p l e a o f gu i l ty

exc eptt hati tm ay notbe us ed as an adm i ss i on i n a ny c i vi l s ui tba se d upo n or gr ow i ng ou toft he ac tupon w hi ch t he cr i m i nal pr os ec ut i on i s bas ed. Tex . C r im . P r o c . A n n . a rt . 2 7 .0 2 (5 ) (V e r n o n 2 0 0 6 ). F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a p p e a l, app el l ant ’ s pl ea ofnol o c ont end er e i s t r ea t ed t he sa m e a s a p l ea ofgui l t y.

13 ... Hi l l v. L o ckh a rt , 4 7 4 U .S . 5 2 , 5 5 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 3 6 6 , 3 6 8 (1 9 8 5 ). 5 To det er m i ne w het herappel l anti s ent i t l ed t o habeas r el i ef , how ever , w e m ust dec i de w het hert he f i r stpr oba t i on or deral so i s voi d. A p p e lla n ta r g u e s t h a tt h e f ir s tp r o b a t io n o r d e r o f A p r il 1 7 , 1 9 9 6 , is v o id because hi s court - appo i nt ed t r i al counsel pr ovi ded i nef f ect i ve assi st ance w hi ch
r e n d e r e d h is p le a in v o lu n t a r y . S p e c if ic a lly , a p p e lla n ta lle g e s t h a t , f o llo w in g h is
ar r est , hi s t r i al counsel advi sed hi m t hathe coul d ei t her st ay i n j ai l unt i l counsel
r evi ew ed t he st at e’ s evi de n ce orac ce ptt he pl ea ba r gai n t hatw as be i ng of f er ed; t hata con vi ct i on w oul d not af f ec t hi s com m er ci al dr i ver ’ s l i ce ns e; an d t h a th e c o u ld n o t o b t a in a n e w b o n d . T h u s , a p p e lla n t c o n t e n d s h e p le a d e d n o lo
c o n te n d e re “underdur ess as I w as desper at e t o keep m y j ob w hi ch r equi r ed

12 I sta yo u t o f j a i l .”

“ T h e lo n g s t a n d in g t e s tf o rd e t e r m in in g t h e v a li d i t y o fa g u ilt yp le a is
w het hert he pl ea r epr es ent s a v ol unt ar y a nd i nt el l i gen tch oi ce am ong a l t er nat i ve
c o u rs e s o f a c ti o n o p e n to th e d e fe n d a n t.” W hen a def end antch al l eng es t he 13 vol untar i ness ofa pl ea based on t he advi ce of coun sel , al l egi ng t hat hi s counsel14 ... Ex p arte Moody , 9 9 1 S .W .2 d 8 5 6 , 8 5 7

– 5 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 );

Ex p arte Mor

row , 9 5 2 S .W .2 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ), cert. denied, 5 2 5 U .S . 8 1 0 (1 9 9 8 ), over ruled i n pa rton o th er

groundsby T

a ylo r v. S tate , 1 0 9 S .W .3 d 4 4 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ).

15 ... Reg ar di ng app el l ant ’ s cl ai m t hathi s pl ea w as i nvol untar y because c o u n s e l f a ile d t o a c c u r a t e lya d v is e h im o ft h e p o s s ib le e f f e c ta c o n v ic t io n w o u ld have on hi s com m er ci al dr i ver s l i cense, a cl ai m t hat a d ef endan tw as m i si nf or m ed by cou nsel , st andi ng a lo n e , is not enou gh t o r endera pl ea i n v o l u n ta ry . Se ePenav. Sta te , 1 32 S. W . 3d 663, 669 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pus C h ri s ti 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.); T a b o ra v. S tate , 14 S. W . 3d 3 3 2 , 3 34 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.); F i m b erg v. S tate , 922 S. W . 2d 205, 6 w a s i n e ffe c ti v e , a p p e l l a n t h a s th e b u rd e n to s h o w 1 ) t h a t c o u n s e l ’s per f or m ance f el l b e lo w a r easonabl e st andar d ofcom pet ence and 2 ) t hat app el l antw oul d, w i th a r ea so nab l e p r oba bi l i t y, ha ve pl ea ded notgui l t y a nd i ns i st ed on go i ng t o t r i al ha d c ouns el notco m m i t t ed t he er r or s al l ege d by
a p p e l l a n t. 14 The th ru s tofap pel l ant ’ s i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e c om pl ai nti s t hathe pl ea ded nol o c ont end er e t o avo i d l os i ng hi s j ob. N one of hi s af f i dav i tt es t i m ony d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t h is p le a w a s b a s e d o n t r ia l c o u n s e l’s a lle g e d a d v ic e . N o ris t her e any al l egat i on orevi dence i n t he r ecor d ofdef ic ie n t c o ndu ctt hat pr eve nt ed app el l antf r om obt ai ni ng a new bond. Ther ef or e, ap pel l antha s not
m ethi s bur den ofes t abl i sh i ng t hatco uns el ’ s per f or m anc e f el l be l ow a
r e a s o n a b le s t a n d a r d o f c o m p e t e n c e , o r t h a t a p p e lla n t r e c e iv e d o b j e c t iv e ly def i ci entr epr es ent at i on. 1520 8 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1st D i st . ] 19 96 , pet . r ef ’ d) . M or eover , any ef f ect

a convi ct i on w oul d have on appel l ant ’ s com m er ci al dr i ver s l i cense w oul d be a col l at er al consequen ce oft he convi ct i on. C oun sel ’ s f ai l ur e t o pr oper l y advi se a d ef end antof t he col l at er al con se que nce s of a con vi ct i on doe s notr i se t o t he l evel ofconst i t ut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel and does no tr ender a p l e a i n v o l u n ta ry . See Mor row , 952 S. W . 2d a t536.

7 Becau se appel l anthas f ai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of show i ng t hathi s f i r st pl ea w as i nvol un ta ry , th e t r i al co urtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on i n de nyi ng appel l ant ’ s appl i cat i on f or w r i t of habeas cor pus. The t r i al cour t ’ s j udg m enti s, t her ef or e, af f i r m ed.
P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and H O LM A N , JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Se pt e m be r4, 2008