### NUM BER 13-08- 0017 8-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
EX PA RTE: JUSTI N DEL LLA NO
On ap pe al f rom th e 9 4th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

# MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Jus ti n Del Llano, appeal s f ro m the t ri al cour t’ s o rd er deny ing hi s p eti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11 .07 2 § 8 (Verno n 20 08). By tw o issues, Ju stin argues tha t he rece iv ed ine f fective assistance of

coun sel w hen his
coun sel advised him to accep t a plea b argain a nd did notch allenge the validityo f a search
w ar ran t th atu nc ov ered e v i de nc e for mi ng t he b as i s o f t he p ros ec ut i on
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On May 23, 200 7, Of

f icer G. Olv era sou ght a search warrantto search a residen ce2

at 5702 Glen Arbor in Nuece s Coun ty, T exas. Off icer Olv era execute d a prob able cause affi da v i t, w hi c h s ta te d th at th e “ s us pe c te d pl ac e i s i n c ha rg e of an d c on trol l ed by ” Justin and hi s father , H enr

y D el Ll a n o
. A t th e ti me the search w ar ra nt w as is sued, Ju sti n w as sev enteen y ears o ld and w as li v ing w it h hi s p arents

. The aff ida v itst ated that Off ic er Ol v era bel iev ed th at J ust in w as know ing ly and int ent io n all y

i n pos ses si on of con traband t h a th a d b e e n u s e d t o d e fa c e p ro p e rt y:

Y our aff ian t has had pr ior

co ntac t w it h J ust in Del Llan o and [C .T.] D ur i ng t he s e c on ta c ts i t ha s b ec om e ap pa r en t that bot h bo y s h av e s om e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e C r i mi n a l S t r e e t G a n g “ S o u t h S i d e B l o o d s
. ” Ju sti n D el Llan o ha s “South Side” tatt ooe d on his fo r [sic] arms. On 10 -1 9 -0 6 you r af

f ia n te n t e r e d th e bo ys res tr o o m atKin g High Scho ol and detec ted a s trong odor of per manent mar ker

. On t he w all s a nd sta l l s , w r i t t e n i n b l a c k p e r ma n e n t ma r k e r w e r e “ Tr u b l ” a n d “ S o u th S ide Bl ood.” J ust in Del Ll ano w as seen on sur v eil lan ce camera ent er ing the re stroom w it h a k now n as soc iat e of hi s i denti fied as [V.Y .]. [V. Y .] w as lat er ide nti fied th ro ug h emai ls as the tag g er “ Trubl .” On 2-4- 07 numerous areas of King Hig h School w as [si c] v andal iz ed w it h g ra ff it i. Y our

aff ian t re v iew ed th e s ur v eil lan ce camera and obser v ed three s ubj ect s w alk ing to areas that w ere v and a lize d wit h g ra ff it i. O ne subj ectw ear ing a grey hooded j ack et w ent t o areas that w ere tag g ed w it h “L EAN .” The ot her

tw o w ear ing bl ack

hooded j ack e ts we re seen g oin g to ar eas that w ere tag g ed w it h “ South Si de Bl oods. ” Itw as lat er di sc ov ered th at the ident ity

of “LEAN” w as [J.A. ] an asso ciate o f Justin Del L lano

. A v ehicle used dur ing the ti me of the v andal is m fits the desc ri pti on of a v ehi cl e s een at t he resi dence of Jus ti n Del Ll ano. The v ehi cl e, a g old N is san Ma x ima w it h a mi ss ing r ig ht rear

h u b c a p T X

LP Y 30- LY B, c ame bac k reg is tered to Annett e D el Lla no. On 5
- 1 6
- 0 7 [ C

. T. ] a n a s s o c i a t e o f J u s t i n D e l L l a n o w a s a r r e s t e d for p la ce s [ s i c ] w e a p o n s p ro h ib it e d an d graf f it i. La te r th a t n igh t K in g High Scho ol w as v and aliz ed wi th graf f iti. On came ra a s u bject w earing a black hoo ded ja cket w as seen spray pain ting “South Side Bloo d” on th e brick w all of Ki ng
. It is beli ev ed that the act w as in re tal iat ion for arrest ing [C .T.] w ho is kn ow n to hav e a c onnec ti on w it h the cr imi nal st re et g a n g “S o u th S ide Bl oods. ”3

The Ho norabl e Sand ra W atts , t he presi din g j udg e of the 117th Di str ic t C our t of Nue ces C ounty , s ig ned th e wa rra n t on M ay 23, 2007. The obj ectof the w ar ra nt w as to seize i tem s such as m arkers and aeroso l paint s , p arap hern alia use d to com mit graf f iti,
cam eras, film , me mo ry storage, photo s and v ideo ev iden ce, an d cloth ing. Off icer Olv era ex ec ut ed t he w arrant the sa me d ay i t w as s i g ne d. D ur i ng h i s s ea r c h of J us ti n’ s roo m, Of f icer Olv era discovered a shot gun w ith a barrel less tha n f if tee n inche s long in Justin’s cl oset

. On June 21, 2007, Jus ti n w as ind ic ted for poss ess ion of an unl awful fire ar m. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 46. 05( a) (3 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 008) ( maki ng pos ses si on of a s hortbar re l fire ar m a f e lo n y). Ju sti n retai ned an attor ney , and on D ecember 13, 2007, he appeared before the tr ial co urt and pl eaded g uil ty pursuantto a pl ea barg ain w it h the Sta te. The cour t i nq uired w hether

Justi n pleaded g uil ty

v olu ntar il y , and Ju sti n ag re ed th at he w as ple adi ng g uil ty

vo lun tar il y

because he w as g uil ty

. Jus ti n al so infor med the tr ial co urt t hat he had re v iew ed th e c our t’ s w ri tten admoni shment s w it h hi s a ttor ney , t hat his att or ney had
ex pla ine d the prov is ion s, and he understo od th e prov is ion s. T he St ate of

fered into ev iden ce Sta te’s Exhibits 1 and 2, w hich con taine d the police investig ation , Justin’s j udicial confession , and the plea agreem ent

. Justin d id n o to bject to a n y o f this ev ide nce. The S tate’ s e v ide nce inc lud ed Officer Ol v era’s nar ra ti v e repor t,
w hic h des cr ibe d the ex ecut ion of the s ear ch w ar ra nt. Officer Ol v era’s nar ra ti v e i ndi cat ed tha t during the executio n of the search w arrant, he located a sawed-of f shotgun in Justin’s cl oset

. Jus ti n’s j udi ci al confess ion and sti pul ati on s tated :4 My atto rn e y ha s in ves ti gat e d th e fa ct s a n d circ u m st a n ce s su rro undi ng my case, discusse d tho se wi t h me, and advised me of possible def ense s. I am s ati sfied w it h my

att or ney ’s represent ati on. I am ple adi ng g uil ty to the off ense of POSSES SION OF A P RO HI BITED W EA PON bec ause I am g uil ty

. My

pl ea i s freel y , v olu ntar il y , k now ing ly , and i ntel li g entl y g iv en. In ex chang e for

the g uil ty

pl ea, t he St ate a g re ed to recommend that the c our t defer adj udi cat ion , pl ace Jus ti n on communi ty super v is ion for se v en y ears, and as ses s a fine o f $1, 500 . T he trial co urt accep ted t he plea , foun d tha t the re was e nou gh e v iden ce to con v ict Jus ti n, and adopted the plea agreement. On Dec ember 13, 2007, the t ri al cour t ent ered
a w ri tten order deferr ing adj udi cat ion , pla ci ng Jus ti n on communi ty super v is ion for s ev en y e a rs , a n d a s s e s s i n g a $ 1 , 5 0 0 fi n e
. T h e t r i a l c o u rtc e rt i fi e d t h a tJ u s t i n h a d n o r i g h tto appeal the g uil ty

pl ea. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 44 .02 (Vernon 200 6). O n F e b r u a r

y 5 , 2 0 0 8 , J u s t i n fi l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n fo r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt

. 1 1

. 0 7 2 (a ). Ju s t in a ll e ge d t h a th e re c e ive d in e f fe c t ive
ass is tanc e of coun sel bec ause his tr ial att or ney adv is ed hi m to a cc ept a pl ea ag re ement but fai led to inv est ig ate a nd c hal len g e the v ali dity of the s ear ch w ar ra nt t hat re sul ted i n the dis cov er y of the prohi bit ed w eapon. He arg ued that the search w ar ra nt w as not b ased on pr obabl e c a u s e , a n d h a d h i s c o u n s e l b e e n e ffe c t i v e , h e w o u l d h a v e a d v i s e d J u s t i n t hat t h e re wa s a ch a n c e t h e we a p o n c o u ld b e su p p re s s e d

. He a rg u e d t h a th e wo u ld n o th a ve ple aded g uil ty

had he know n there w as any chance that the s ear ch w ar ra nt w as defecti v e. In sup port of

his applicat ion, Ju stin att ache d the proba ble cau se af f idavit i n sup port of the sea rch w arrant, his ow n af f idavit, a nd an af

f idavit signed by his fath er, Henry Jessie Del Ll ano. Ju sti n’s aff ida v itst ated:

I met w it h my

tr ial attor ney on sev eral occ asi ons in preparati on for the defense i n my

ca se. M y

ca se w as based on a se ar ch w ar ra nt i ss ued and5

executed on May 23, 200 7. I u n d e rs t a n d thatthe validity of the sea rch w ar ra nt w as the k ey

el ement i n the defense of myca se. I asked my atto rney abo u tt h e sea rch w arrant a nd h e told me th at it w as “l eg all y

so und.” I w ould not ha v e plea ded g uilty, h ad m y atto rney told me th at th ere wa s a ch a n c e t h a tt h e a f f id a vitsu p p o rt in g t h e wa rr a n twa s b a d a n d t h a twe mig ht s ucc ess fully

ex cl ude t he ev ide nce obtai ned f ro m the w ar ra nt. I re li ed s o le ly o n m y a t t o rn e y’s a d vic e in re a c h in g m y d e c is io n t o p le a d gu il t y. Justin’s fath er provi ded an af f idavit making similar assertion s: I met w it h J ust in’ s t ri al attor ney on s ev eral occ asi ons i n preparati on for Justin’s de fense . On mo st occasio ns the atto rney w ould me et w ith Justin by hi msel f, but he w oul d talk w it h me al so. I understo od th at t he v ali dity of the s ear ch w ar ra nt w as the key ele ment in the defense of Ju sti n’s ca se and I as k ed th e at to r ne y i f th e s ea r c h w ar ran t w as g oo d. J us ti n’ s l awy er t ol d me that the s ear ch w ar ra nt w as a “ sound ” w ar ra nt. Justin d epe nde d on his attorn ey’s advice in plead ing g uilty. He also depended on me t o as sure hi m thathi s attor ney w as g iv ing hi m g ood adv ic e. Had I know n tha t there w as a c hance thatthe aff ida v itsu ppor ti ng the w ar ra nt w as def ective and tha t the evidence might possib ly be suppre s s e d , Justin wo u ld n o th a ve p le a d e d gu il t y. The Stat e fil ed a re spons e to the a ppl ic ati on. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11. 072 § 5(b). T he State argued that the app lication should be de nied beca use Ju stin did notmee t his burde n to pro ve t h a th e wo uld ha v e insisted on going to trial but for his
couns el’ s a ll eg ed er ro rs and th a t a moti on to su ppress w oul d hav e been g ra nted. The Stat e att ached an a ff ida v itfrom J ust in’ s t ri al couns el, w hic h s tated :

Dur ing the ensui ng sev en months [after the search w ar ra n t w as ex ecut ed] I had many meeti ng s w it h J ust in and/or hi s p are n ts, and prose cuto rs. Aft er several discussions w ith in t a k e District Attorne y Jack Pul cher , al l of Just in’ s fel ony ch arg es w ere reduce d to mis demeanors or no billed, e x ceptt he sa w ed-o f f shotgun (possession of prohibite d w eap on). Numerous meeti ng s w it h J ames G ardner , gan g prosec utor at the t ime, made it clear thathe didn ’t w antt o giv e Justin any b reaks. He b elieved Justin is a le a d e r o f t h e S o u t h S id e B lo o d s s t re e tg a n g, a n d h e wa s u p s e tt h a tt h e two6

felony g ra ff it i charg es w er e dropped. A ple a off er for d eferred adj udi cat ion w it h H omer Sal ina s b ootc amp as a c ondi ti on w as neg oti ated. I di sc uss ed Jus ti n’s opti ons w it h him and his parents

. W e di sc uss ed defenses and t he ple a off er
. I ex pla ine d that becau se Jus ti n w as caug ht w it h the c ontraband i n hi s c lo se t a n d dress er , t he onl y defense w oul d be a chal len g e to the s ear ch. O ur pr imar y obj ect iv e w as to av oid a c onv ic ti on. It w as ma de clea r during plea n egotiatio ns tha t a supp ression he aring w ould re sul t i n the pl ea offer for deferred adj udi cat ion bei ng w it hdraw n. Subs eq uentl y , s traig ht de ferred adj udi cat ion w it h no bootc amp w as neg oti ated.

. . . . T he assertio n in the De l L lano ’s a f f idavits th at I ad v ised th em thatI did notbelieve the sea rch w arrant a f f idavit fo r probab le cause w ould successf ully

be cha llenged is true. I advised the m th at in m y opinio n the re was e n o u gh e vide n ce pro vide d in th e af f id a vit t h a tth e revie wing Ju d ge w oul d no t ov er r ul e J ud g e W at ts ’ d ec i s i on t o i s s ue t he w ar ran t. I n my experience , the circumsta nces p resen ted w ere not cond ucive to a fa v orab le ru li ng
. I adv is ed Del Llano that if w e chall eng ed th e s ear ch, the Prosec utor w oul d w it hdraw

the ple a offer

and he w oul d pro b a b ly end up w it h a fel ony conv ic ti on on his record. W e tal ked about a ‘ mere ev ide nce’ w ar ra nt an d the fact th at i t had to be i ss ued by a l ic ensed att or ney

j udg e. W e di sc uss ed th e probabl e c ause ass erti ons, and I did ex press m y opini on that chal len g ing the w arrant would be risky

. I n my op inion, Ju stin and h is p aren ts und erstoo d his opti ons and he deci ded t o tak e the pl ea offer for deferred adj udi cat ion

. By doin g so he w as aware that he w as w aivi ng his r ight to challen ge the sea rch w arrant, and his trial r ights. On March 17 , 200 8, the trial court denied the app lication fo r a w rit of hab eas co rpus, findi ng thatthe appl ic ati on w as friv olo us. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. I N EFFEC TI VE A SS I ST A NCE OF C OU N SEL By hi s first is sue, Ju sti n arg ues that he recei v ed i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el becau se his tr ial att or ney adv is ed him to acc ept the ple a barg ain w it hout inv est ig ati ng and attac ki ng the search w ar ra nt. By hi s s econd i ss ue, h e arg ues th a t h is prosec uti on w as based on an unlawful sear ch. He arg ues that becau se of his co unsel ’s fail ure to attac k t he7

defecti v e s ear ch w ar ra nt, his g uil ty pl ea w as not k now ing ly and v olu ntar il y

made. A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W e revi ew a trial judge’s decision to g rant or de ny hab eas co rpus relief for an ab use of dis creti on. Lovi

ll v. Sta te , Nos . 13- 07- 00529- CR& 1 3- 07- 00668- CR , 200 8 W L 52755 31, at * 10 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti D ec. 22, 2008, pet. g ra nted) ; E x p a r te Wils on , 171 S.W .3d 9 25, 9 28 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2005, no pet.) . W e afford al most total deferen ce to the j udg e's dete rmi nati on of the histo ri cal facts thatare s uppor ted b y the re cord, particu larly

w hen the fact f indings are based on an ev alua tion of credibility and dem ean or. Lovill , 200 8 W L 52755 31, a t * 10; Ex par te Wil son , 171 S.W .3d at 928. W e defer to t he tr ial jud g e's appl ic ati on of t he law to the facts, if the re sol uti on of the ult imat e q uest ion s t ur ns on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor

. Lovill , 200 8 W L 52755 31, a t * 10; Ex par te W il son , 171 S.W .3d a t 928

. If t h e r e so lutio n of the ult imat e q uest ion s t ur ns on an appl ic ati on of the law , w e re v iew the deter minat ion de n ov o. Lovill , 200 8 W L 52755 31, a t *10; Ex par

te Wil son , 171 S.W .3d a t 928

. An appli cantfor

a w ri t of habeas c or pus cl aimi ng i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el must demonst ra te that (1) his couns el’ s represent ati on fell below an o bje cti v e s tandard of
re asona ble ness ; and (2 ) the defendant suffered preju dic e the re by

. Ex Par te McF ar lan d , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 1 -5 2 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Str ickl and v . Washi ngton , 466 U .S. 668, 687- 88 ( 1984) ). I n as ses si ng the firs t prong , “ w e l ook to see if co unsel w as act ing as ‘a reason ably compe ten ta t t o rn e y ’ w ould und er the circum stan ces.” Id. at 753 ( q uoti ng Str ickl and , 46 6 U .S

. at6 87 )

. Th e ap pl i c an t “ ha s the b urde n of p roo f an d mu s t ov erc om e a ‘strong presum ption thatcoun sel's performa nce fell w ithin th e w ide range of reason able8

profession al assistan ce.’” Id. (quo ti n g Str ickl and , 466 U.S. a t689 ). Th e trial coun sel’s
er ro rs mustbe “ so ser iou s t hat c ounse l w as not funct ion ing a s th e ‘couns el’ g uaranteed the defend antbythe Sixth Ame ndm ent .” Str ickl and , 466 U .S. at 68 7. T he a pplican t mu st also prov e tha t coun sel’s def icient pe rforma nce p rejudice d his defense—h e mustdemons trate t hat “ there is a reason abl e probabi li ty that , butfor
couns el' s u nprofessi onal er ro rs , t he resul t of the proceed ing w oul d hav e been different. ” Id. at 6 9 4

. A

“ r e a s o n a b l e p ro b a b i l i t y ” m e a n s a “ p ro b a b i l i t y s u ffi c i e n tt o u n d e r mi ne conf iden ce in the outco me .” Id. A record i ndi cat ing that the tri al cour t proper ly

admoni shed the d efendant abou t a g uil ty pl ea present s a pr ima facie show ing t h a t th e g uil ty pl ea w as made v olu ntar il y and know ing ly

. See M

ar ti nez v. Sta te , 981 S.W .2d 1 95, 1 97 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1998)

. Und er thes e circums tanc es, the burden shi fts to the d efendant to sh ow thathe e ntered th e pl ea
w it hout understa ndi ng the cons eq uence s. Id. ; Ar re ola v. Sta te , 2 0 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 1 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 6, no pet. ). “A n acc used w ho attes ts w hen he ent ers h is pl ea o f g u i l t yt h a th e u n d e rs t a n d s t h e n a t u re o f h is p le a a n d t h a titis vo lu n t a ry h a s a h e a vy burd en o n ap pea l to show tha t his plea was inv olun tary.” Arreola , 207 S.W .3d a t 391

. A guilty plea is notv olun tary if

mad e as a result of

inef fective assistance of

coun sel. Ex par te B ur ns , 601 S.W .2d 370, 372 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1980)

. W h e n a d efendant chal len g es the v olu ntar ine ss of a pl ea entered upon the adv ic e of c ounse l, and c ontends that his co unsel w as ine ff ect iv e, “ the volunt ar ine ss of the p lea depend s o n ( 1) w hether
couns el’ s a dv ic e w as w it hin the ra ng e of compet ence demanded o f attor ney s i n c ri minal
cases a nd if

n ot, (2) w het her the re is a reaso nab le proba bility that , butfor coun sel’s errors,9

he would notha ve p le a d e d guilty and w ould have insisted on g oing to trial.” Ex par te Mo ody , 9 9 1 S. W .2 d 85 6 , 8 5 7 -5 8 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) (qu o t i n g Ex Par te Mor ro w , 952 S.W .2d 530 , 536 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97)). B. Inv estiga tion of the Facts Fi rs t, Jus ti n arg ues that his tr ial co unsel fail ed to co nducta full i nv est ig ati on of the facts of the case . W hen an inef fective assistance claim involv es an allegation thatdefense couns el faile d to inv est ig ate t he c ase, the appl ic ant has the burden to show that a fur

ther in ves ti g ati on w oul d hav e l ed to sp eci fic e v ide nce or w it ness es that w ere av ail abl e and
w oul d hav e benefitt ed th e defense. See W il ker son v. State, 7 2 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 1 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1986) ; Ki

ng v . St ate , 649 S.W .2d 4 2, 44 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1983) ( hol din g that , to s how i neffect iv e as si sta nce of couns el becau se of fail ure to cal l w it ness es, defendant
mu st show that w itnesse s w ere available an d tha t he would have ben e f it t e d f ro m th eir t e s t i mo n y ); W

ils on v . St ate , 688 S.W .2d 2 12, 2 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1985, no pet.)

. Justin d oes n ot argue th at his att orne y failed to intervi ew w itnesse s or to prope rly
re v iew the prosec utor ’s fil e. See, e.g., Haynes v. Sta te , 7 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7 (T e x. App.–A ust in 1990, no pet .)

. In fact , J ust in does not p oin t to a n y ev ide nce that a furt her inv est ig ati on w oul d hav e rev eal ed and that w oul d hav e resu lt ed in a strong er ch all eng e to the p ro babl e c ause aff id a v it

. See Wil son , 688 S.W .2d a t 214 ; see als o Wilk er son, 726 S.W .2d a t 551 ; Ki

ng , 649 S .W .2d a t 44. Inste ad, Ju stin’s argume nts focus on th e af f idavit it sel f as bei ng ins uff ic ien t on it s face. W it hout any addi ti onal su ppor

t, w e c annot conc lud e tha t Justin’s trial c o u n s el failed to inv estigate th e facts un derlyi ng the prob able cause10

aff ida v it

. See Ex Par

te Cruz , 739 S .W .2d 5 3, 59 (Te x . Crim. App . 198 7) (holding record ins uff ic ien t to jus ti fy findi ng that attor ney faile d to proper ly i nv est ig ate c ase) , over ru led on other gr ounds , Her

nandez v. Sta te , 988 S.W .2d 7 70 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1999) ; Ki ng, 649 S.W .2d a t 44. Thus , w e reje ct Jus ti n’s arg ument i n thi s reg ard. C. Rev iewo f th e A ff id av it Seco nd, J ust in arg ues that the probabl e caus e aff ida v it , on it s face, demons trates t h a tt h e wa rr a n twa s n o tsu p p o rt e d b y p ro b a b le ca u s e , a n d h is t ri a l c o u n s e l wa s d e fe c t ive by advising him thatthe warrantw as “soun d.” He argues tha t, ha d his coun sel advised him there w as an oppo rt uni ty to chal len g e the probabl e c ause aff ida v itand a “ chanc e” thatthe fire ar m coul d be ex cl uded at t ri al, he w oul d hav e i nsi ste d on g oin g to tr ial and w oul d not hav e pl eaded g uil ty

. In con trast, Just in’s trial counse l m a in t ains th at he advised Justin th at, in his
ex per ien ce, he b eli ev ed th at a chal len g e to the w ar ra nt w oul d probabl y not suc ceed and that suc h a c hal len g e w oul d be “r is ky .” Jus ti n’s tri al coun sel prov ide d an ex pla nati on for the b asi s o f his adv ic e to Jus ti n that he ple ad gui lty to the charg e: couns el ex pla ine d tha t the g oal of the represent ati on, a s d ic tated by Ju sti n and his family , w as to av oid a felony
conv ic ti on. Cou nsel further ex pla ine d that the Stat e infor med him that itw oul d w it hdraw the p lea offer

i f Just in filed a mot ion to suppress the frui ts of the s ear ch. Thus , he adv is ed Justin th at ch allenging the w arrant co uld result in a crimin al conviction on h is
re cord—w hic h J ust in w anted to av oid

. T he trial cou rt adm onish ed Ju stin of the con sequen ces of

h is p lea, a nd Ju stin
re present ed to the tr ial co urt t hat he unders tood the plea, that counsel had inv est ig ated the11

case a nd e x plaine d the possible defense s, and thathe w as satisf ied w ith his coun sel’s adv ic e and re present a ti o n
. U nder thes e c ircums tanc es, Ju sti n bore a h eavy burden t o est abl is h tha t hi s p lea w a s in volunta ry
. See M ar ti nez , 981 S.W .2d a t 197 ; Arreola , 207 S.W .3d a t 391

. W hen faced w it h c onfli cti ng ev ide nce about the c ircums tanc es aff ect ing t h e re p re s e n t a t io n a n d t h e vo lu n t a ri n e s s o f t h e p le a , t h e t ri a l c o u rtwa s r e qu ir e d t o re s o lve the c onfli ct. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 1 1 .0 7 2 § 6 (b) (“ In mak ing i ts deter minat ion , t he c our t may order aff ida v it s, depos it ion s, int er ro g ator ies , or a he ar ing , and mayrely on t he co u rt 's perso nal recol lecti on.” ); Hal l v. State , 1 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 4 , 4 0 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2004) ( hol din g that the “t ri al jud g e, w ho presi ded ov er the tr ial and the h abeas pro ce e d in gs, w as in the b estpos it ion to ev alu ate t he c onfli cti ng ev ide nce” ); see als o Ex par te K ar ls on , 282 S.W .3d 1 18, 1 29- 30 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 09, p et. re f’d)

. As is appa rent f rom th e a b o ve r ecitat ion, Ju stin’s trial counse l did not a dvise him that there w as no pos si bil ity o f a chal len g e to the w ar ra nt, but t hat i t w oul d be “r is ky .” Ju st in ’s tri al couns el opi ned t hat J ust in w as aw are of the opti ons av ail abl e and that he deci ded t o pl ead g uil ty

v olu ntar il y

—al l to achi e ve the g oal of av oid ing a c onv ic ti on. And Justin h as thu s far avoided a conviction—he received def erred adjudica tion. The trial court
w as en titled to believe trial counsel’s recitatio n of the facts an d to con clude thatJustin ple aded g uil ty

v olu ntar il y . See M

it ich v . St ate , 47 S.W .3d 137, 141 (Te x. Ap p .– Co rp us Chr is ti 2001, no p et.) ( hol din g that , w here de f e n d a n t informed tr ial co urt t hat h e had dis cus sed ple a and poss ibl e defenses w it h c ouns e l, understo od c onseq uence s o f plea, and w as sat is fied w it h c ounse l’ s represent ati on, t here w a s n o ev ide nce that adv ic e of
couns el caus ed i nv olu ntar y pl ea) ; see als o Jack

son v. State , N o
. 2
- 0 2
- 2 1 7
- C R , 2 0 0 3 WLJ u s ti n a rg u e s th a t a c h a l l e n g e to th e w a rr a n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s fu l

. In re s p o n s e , t h e S ta te 1 chal l enges t hese ar gum ent s and al so ar gues t hat Just i n di d no t est abl i sh t hat he had st andi ng t o cha l l enge th e w a rr a n t. W e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th e s e i s s u e s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 12 21983258, at *2 (Tex

. App.–F ort W orth Aug

. 21, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.; not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( hol din g t h a t co unsel w as not i neffect iv e i n fail ing to communi cat e pl ea bargain of

fer by Sta te w here plea bargain w ould not satisf y g oal of represen tatio n, w hich
w as to avoid de porta tion). W e overrule Justin’s issues. 1 III . C ONCL US I ON Havi ng ov erruled a ll of

Justin’s issues, w e af

f irm the trial court’s order den y ing his app lication for a w rit of hab eas co rpus.

GIN A M . BE NA VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 13t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.