NO. PD-0419-15

_____________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

_____________________________________________

EX PARTE: DANIEL ALVAREZ

_____________________________________________

THE 384 DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS

TH TRIAL COURT NO. 960D10169-384-1

THE COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

NO. 08-13-00025-CR

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

JAMES D. LUCAS 2316 Montana Avenue El Paso, Texas 79903 Tel: (915) 532-8811 Fax: (915) 532-8807 SBN 12658300
Attorney for Petitioner DANIEL ALVAREZ
jlucas2@elp.rr.com PD-0419-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/21/2015 5:18:36 PM Accepted 5/22/2015 11:41:05 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKTABLE OF CONTENT S

TABLE OF CONTENTS....

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....i

IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES...........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......

....... ....... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .ii i

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... iv

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...iv

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY.....

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .iv

GROUNDS PRESENTED....

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .v

ARGUMENT......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......1

1. By ru li ng th at a co nf li ct of in te res t is no t pr ov en whe re th e un -ref ut ed ev id en ce es ta bl is he s th at an at to rn ey who ha s un de rta ke n th e joi nt rep res en ta ti on of co
de fen da nt s fo ll ows th ro ug h wi th a pl an an d a gr eem en t he ha s m ad e wit h on e co -d e f e n d a n t to se cu re th e di sm is sa l of th at co -d efen da nt ’s c as e in ex ch an ge fo r in d u ci ng th e ot he r co -d efen da nt to pl ead gu il ty, th e co ur t of ap pe al s ha s de ci de d a cas e whi ch co nf li ct s wit h th e S u p r em e Co ur t de ci si on in Duk es v. W ar de n , 40 6 U.S. 2 50 (19 72 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..1

2. The in effe c ti ve as si st an ce te st ad op te d by th e co ur t of ap pe al s in th is cas e co nf li ct s wit h an d m is st at es th e te st ad op te d by th e U.S. S u p r e me C ou rt in Cu yl er v. Su ll iv an , 44 6 U.S. 33 5 (1 98 0)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..7

PRAYER....

. . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......11

CERTIFI CATE OF COMP LIANCE......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...12

CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE............

. . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...12

APPENDIX.......

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .. . . . . . . . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....13

iINDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES

FEDERAL CASES PAGES

Bat y v. Bal kco m , 66 1 F.2 d 39 1 (5 Ci r. 19 81 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....8, 9, 11 th

Cu yl er v. Su ll iv an , 44 6 U.S. 33 5- 50 (1 98 0)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....5, 7, 8
, 9, 11

Duk es v. W ar de n , 40 6 U.S. 25 0 (19 72 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......1, 4, 5, 7

Tu rn qu es t v. W

ai nr ig ht , 65 1 F.2 d 33 1, 33 4 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 ).........

....... ....... ....... ......11

Uni te d St at es v. Mer

s , 70 1 F.2 d 13 21 (1 1 Ci r. 19 83 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .10 th

Uni te d St at es v. Sa la do , 33 9 F.3 d 28 5 (2 00 3)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..10

STATE CASES

Gas to n v . St at e , 13 6 S .W .3d 31 5, 3 18 (Tex .App .–Ho us to n [1 Dis t.] 20 04 , pe t. dis m is se d)

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5 s t

Ex pa rt e McFar la nd , 16 3 S .W .3d 74 3, 75 9 (Tex. Crim .ap p. 20 05 ).........

....... .....7, 9

Rou ti er v. St at e, 11 2 S .W .3d 55 4( Tex . Cri m

. App

. 20 03 ).........

....... ....... ....... ....... ....9

RULES

T EX

. C ODE C RI M P ROC

. art .11 .07 2.............

....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....iii

iiIDE NTI TY OF THE PARTIES

For Petit io ner Da ni el Alv ar ez

Ja m es D. Lucas W rit an d Ap pe ll at e Att or ne y 23 16 Mo nt an a Ave nu e El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 3

For the St at e o f Tex as

Lil y Str ou d, As st . Dis tri ct Att or ne y El Pas o C ou nt y

Co ur th ou se , Roo m

20 1 50 0 Eas t Sa n An to ni o El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1

Ja im e Esp arza Dis tri ct Att or ne y El Pas o C ou nt y

Co ur th ou se , Roo m

20 1 50 0 Eas t Sa n An to ni o El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1

St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y P.O. Box 12 40 5 Aus ti n, Tex as 78 71 1

Ju dg e

Hon . Pat ric k Gar ci a El Pas o C ou nt y

Co ur th ou se 50 0 Eas t Sa n An to ni o El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1

iiiSTATE MENT REG ARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Pet it io ne r, Dan ie l Al va rez, wai ve s o ral arg um en t i n t hi s ca se

.

STATE MENT OF TH E CASE

Dan ie l, App el le e in th e co ur t of ap p e a l s be lo w, was in di ct ed fo r th e se co nd

de gr ee fel on y of po ss es si on of co cai ne in an m ou nt of ou r gr a ms or m or e, bu t le ss

t h a n 2 0 0 gr am s. CR at 3

. On Ju ne 9, 19 97 , Alv arez pl ed gu il ty an d was as se ss e d

pu ni sh m en t a 5 y ears ’ de ferr ed ad jud ic at io n co m

m un it y su pe rv is io n se nt en ce. I Su pp

.
C R a t 3- 8. Alv arez di d no t ap pe al th e tri al co ur t’s or de r pl aci ng hi m de ferr i n g a n

ad jud ic at io n. On Ju ly 27 , 20 12 , Alv arez fil ed an ap pl ic at io n fo r writ of ha be as co rp us

pu rs ua nt to Arti cl e 1 1

. 0 7 2 o f th e Tex as Co de of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e. CR 4- 21

. On

Decem be r 17 , 20 12 , th e co ur t he ard ev id en ce an d arg um en t an d on Ja nu ary 16 , 20 13 ,
th e tri al co ur t gr an te d Alv arez ’ ap pl ic at io n fo r writ of ha be as co rp ur s an d is su ed

fin di ng s o f fac t an d c on cl us io ns of l aw. RR 4-4 2 ; CR at 16 3- 16 5.

STATE MENT OF PROCEDURAL HI STO RY

1

. On Ja nu ary 28 , 20 15 , th e co ur t of ap pe al s rev ers ed th e tri al c o u r t ’s o r d e r gr an ti ng rel ie f on Dani el Alv arez ’ ap pl ic at io n fo r writ of h ab eas co rp us

.
2. On Feb ru ary 2 7 , 2 0 15 , a m ot io n fo r reh eari ng was fil ed an d on th e sa m e da y an m ot io n to ex te nd ti m e to fil e a m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n o f ti m e to fil e m ot io n fo r reh eari ng was a ls o fi le d.

3. On Mar ch 18 , 20 15 , th e co ur t of ap pe al s de ni ed Dan ie l A l v arez ’ m ot io n fo r reh eari ng

.

ivGROUNDS FOR REVI EW

1. The co ur t of ap pe al s erre d b y r u l i n g th at a co nf li ct of in te res t is no t pr ov en whe re th e un -ref

ut ed evide nc e es ta bl is he s th at an at to rn ey un de rta ki ng th e joi nt rep res en ta ti on of co -d efen da nt s fo ll ows th ro ug h wit h a pl an an d ag reem en t he ha s m ad e wit h on e co -d efen da nt to se cu re th e di sm is sa l of th at co -d efen da nt ’s
cas e in ex ch an ge for in du ci ng th e o th er co -d efen da nt to pl ead gu il ty

2. The te st fo r in effe ct iv e as si st an ce te st th e co ur t of ap pe al s ad op te d in th is cas e
m is st at es th e te st ad op te d by th e U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t in Cu yl er v. Su ll iv an , 44 6 U.S. 33 5 (1 98 0)

vARGUMENT

1. By ru l i n g tha t a co nfl ic t of in tere st is no t pro ve n w here the un-r efut ed
ev id ence es ta bl is hes tha t an at to rney w ho ha s u nder ta k en the jo in t repr es enta tio n of co -de f e n da nts fo ll ow s thro ug h w ith a pl an an d ag reement he ha s m ad e w ith on e co -def enda nt to se cure the di smi ss al of tha t co -def

enda nt’s ca se in ex cha ng e fo r in duci ng the ot her co -def enda nt to pl ea d gu il ty , the co urt of ap pea ls ha s deci ded a ca se w hi ch co nfl ic ts w ith the Su preme Cour t deci si on in Duk es v. Wa rd en , 40 6 U.S. 2 50 (19 72 )

Po li ce rep or ts pr ep ared in co nn ect io n wit h th is cas e refl ect th at on Nov em be r

21 , 19 96 , App li can t Dan ie l Alv arez was arre st ed whi le op erat in g a 19 86 Old sm ob il e

m ot or ve hi cl e on Lee Trev in o Driv e in El Pas o Co un ty, Tex as

. CR 9. Alt ho ug h th e

po li ce rep or ts do no t so in di cat e, Alv arez was no t th e own er of th e 19 86 Old sm ob il e

ve hi cl e st op pe d by th e po li ce. Id

. Ano th er m al e in di vi du al fo un d in si de th e ve hi cl e

wit h Alv arez at th e ti m e th e tra ffi c st op was m ad e id en ti fie d hi m se lf as Ju li an Ji cal an Lop ez, with a da te of bi rth of Ja nu ary 10 , 19 75

. Id

. At the ti m e of th e tra ffi c st op , a

ve hi cl e se arch of th e m ot or ve hi cl e Alv arez was dr iv in g, at whi ch ti m e ap pr ox im at el y

10 gr am s of co cai ne was al l e g e dl y se iz ed fro m in si de th e da sh bo ard of th e ve hi cl e

Alv arez an d Lo pe z o ccu pi ed

. Id . Thes e rep or ts in di cat e th at th is co cai ne was no t i n pl ai n v ie w, bu t wel l-h id de n fr om vi ew. Id

.
Dan ie l Al v a r e z (“ Alv arez ”) was in di ct ed un de r th e na m e he was arre st ed on

Nov em be r 21 , 19 96 fo r po ss es si on of co cai ne , m or e th an 4 g r a ms b u t un de r 20 0

gr am s. CR 10 ; CR 11 4. W it h hi s Atto rn ey Barr aza as hi s att or ne y , he pl ed gu il ty to

Pag e 1th is ch arg e. Co -d efen da nt Ju li a n J i c a la n Lop ez was la te r in di ct ed un de r th e na m e

San ti ag o Ji cal an San ch ez un de r cau se nu m be r 97 0D0 32 34 , aft er th e de fen da nt ’s tru e

na m e was di sc ov ered to be di ffer en t th an th at of th e na m e he ga ve at th e ti m e of hi s

arre st

. Id

. Afte r San ch ez was i n d i c t e d fo r th e of fen se of po ss es si on of m or e th an 4

gr am s an d un de r 20 0 gr am s in cau se nu mb e r 9 70 D03 23 4, no th in g tra ns pi red in

S a n c he z’ cas e un ti l on or ab ou t Sep te m be r 25 , 20 02 , whe n th e in di ct m en t i n t h i s

cau se was se rv ed on San ch ez wh il e in jail ). Id

. On Octo be r 29 , 2 00 3, an or de r was

is su ed di sm is si ng th e ch arg e ag ai ns t Sa nc he z. Id.

The ex pr es s at to rn ey -cl ie nt le ga l se rv ic es ag re em en t re ached be twee n Att or ne y

Barr aza an d San ch ez was th at San ch ez wou ld pa y Att or ne y Barr az a t he at to rn ey ’s

fees ne ces sa ry to de fen d bo th Alv arez an d San ch ez on th e pe nd in g co cain e po ss es si on

ch arg e th ey were arre st ed fo r on N o v e mb er 21 , 19 96

. Id

. Co -d efen da nt San ch ez

co nf irmed th e ex is te nc e of th is ag reem en t by pr ov id in g an affi da vi t whe rei n he st at ed

th at he pa id Att or ne y Barr aza to rep res en t bo th App li can t Alv arez an d hi m se lf on th e

Nov em be r 21 , 19 96 co cai ne po ss es si on ch arg e. Id .; CR 11 6.

W hi le Alv arez was aware th at Att or ne y Barr aza ha d be en pa id by co -d efen da nt

San ti ag o San ch ez, he was no t aware th at co -d efen da nt San ch ez ha d ag re e d , in

ex ch an ge fo r th is fee, to at te m pt to sec ur e a m or e fav or ab le ou tc om e o f th e cas e fo r

San ch e z

. C

R 1 1; CR 11 5. Sp eci fic al ly, Alv arez was un aware th at th e ag reem en t

Pag e 2Att or ne y Barr aza reac he d wit h San ch ez was th at he wou ld at te m pt to se cu re a

co m m un it y su pe rv is io n se nt en ce fo r Alv arez an d a di sm is sa l of hi s cas e. Att or ne y

Barr aza li ve d up to hi s ag reem en t wit h co -d efen da nt San ti ag o San ch ez. 1d

. Not on ly

di d he , as Alv arez ’ tri al c o u n s e l , ne go ti at e a co m m un it y su pe rv is io n se nt en ce fo r

Alv arez wit h t he pro se cu to r; h e al so se cu red a di sm is sa l of San ch ez’ i nd ic tm en t on

th e sa m e p os se ss io n o f co cai ne ch arg e. Id

.
In th e tri al co ur t be lo w, co -d efen da nt San ch ez pr ov id ed a swo rn af f i d a v i t in

su pp or t of Alv arez ’ cl ai m th at San ch ez hi red Att or ne y Barr aza to rep res en t bo th

hi m se lf an d Dan ie l Alv arez

. CR 14 1. In hi s affi da vi t, San ch ez st at ed th at th e co cai ne

wit h whi ch Barr aza was accu se d o f po ss es si ng be lo ng ed to hi m an d th at he hi red

Att or ne y Barr aza to en su re th at Alv arez to ok th e “ fal l” fo r th e of fen se

. Id

. San ch ez’

affi da vi t fu rth er co rro bo rat ed th e cl ai m m ad e by Alv arez in hi s affi da vi t, th at he in

fact di d le ad Dan ie l Alv arez to be li ev e th at Att or ne y Barr aza in te nd ed to de fen d hi m

to th e be st of hi s ab il it y , whe n in fact he an d Barr aza “ h a d a l r e a d y ag reed to ha ve

Dan ie l Alv arez pl ead gu il ty to th e in di ct ed ch arg e so th at th e ch arg e ag ai ns t hi m

co ul d l at er b e d is m is se d.” CR 11 4- 11 5; CR 14 1- 14 2.

The ev id en ce at th e writ he ari ng fu rth er es ta bl is he d th at San ti ag o San ch ez was

th e m or e culp ab le de fen da nt

. CR 77 -9 2. Unl ik e Alv arez , San ch ez was id en ti fie d earl y

on in t h e i n v e st ig at io n as a kn own dr ug ad di ct an d as a rep eat of fen de r un de r th e

Pag e 3Rep eat Offen de r Pro gr am

. ( CR 77 ). Acco rd in g to on e m em be r of th e arre st te am ,
San ch ez had pr ev io us ly be en arre st ed for m ari juan a, un li ke Alv arez

. CR 78

. On th e

da te San ch ez an d Alv arez were arre st ed , San ch ez ap art m en t at 33 28 Hay es , #1 3 was

se arch ed

. CR 78 -7 9. Dur in g th e se arch , nu m ero us bi ll s of ro ll ed cu rren cy were fo un d

in th e ap art m en t an d se iz ed as dr ug co nt rab an d. W hi le se arch San ch ez’ a pa rtment,

th e of fic ers al so en co un te red a co cai ne de al er kn own as Abr ah a m Gao na who was

in si de th e ap art m en t wh en th e se arch co m m en ced . ( CR 78 -7 9, 8 6)

. The co ur t of ap pe al s be lo w ad dr es se d San ch ez’ cl ai m th at hi s co nv ic ti on fo r

po ss es si on of ov er fo ur gr am s of co cai ne sh ou ld be va cat ed ba se d on in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce by reas on of th e co nf li ct of in te res t whi ch res ul te d fro m Att or ne y Barr aza’s

du al rep res en ta ti on of Al va rez a nd San ch ez i n t he fol lo win g m an ne r:

To be su re, th ere is so m e ev id en ce of th e ex is te nc e of a tru e co nf li ct of in te res t pr es en te d on th e reco rd

. The al le ga ti on th at at to rn ey Man ny Barr aza acce pt ed th e rep res en ta ti on of two pe rs on s wit h th e in te nt to pl ead on e to th e de tri m en t of th e ot he r is pr eci se ly t he type of co nf li ct al lu de d in Duk

es v. W ar de n , 4 06 U.S. 25 0, 92 S.Ct 15 55 1, 32 L.Ed.2 d 45 (1 97 2)

. In Duk es , on e of se ve ral co
de fen da nt s rep res en te d by th e sa m e fir m of at to rn ey co m pl ai ne d th at hi s gu il ty pl ea was ta in te d by a co nf li ct of in te res t. He ha d le arn ed t ha t hi s at to rn ey whe n pl ead in g ou t th e co -d efen da nt s ha d tri ed to ga in le ni en cy fo r th e ot he r de fen da nt s by su gg es t i n g th at he was th e m or e cu lp ab le de fen da nt

. Id ., 40 6 U.S. at 25 4, 92 S.Ct

. at 15 54

. The co ur t reject ed th e cl ai m , bu t sp eci fic al ly refe ren ced a fin di ng of th e lo wer co ur t th at th ere was no ev id en ce th a t th e at to rn ey “ in du ct ed [Du ke s] to pl ead gu il ty in fu rth e r a n c e o f a pl an to ob ta in

m or e fav or ab le co ns id erat io n fro m th e co ur t fo r ot he r cl ie nt s.” Id ., 40 6 U.S. at 25 7, 92 Sct . At 1 55 4.... The re i s, h owe ve r, so m e ev id en ce o n th is reco rd of a pl an to fav or on e d efen da nt ov er t he ot he r. Opi ni on , pp . 12 -1 3.

Pag e 4B u t i n lo ok in g at th is reco rd , we are no t di rect ed to an y ev id en ce su pp or t i n g

th e se co nd Cu

yl e r pr ed ic at e th at th e co nf li ct ha d an ad ve rs e effe ct on sp eci fic in st an ces of at to rn ey Barr aza’s co nd uc t. “ An ap pe ll an t m us t id en ti fy sp eci fic in st an ces in th e reco rd th at refl ect a ch oi ce th at co un se l m ad e be twee n po ss ib le al te rn at iv e co ur se s of act io n, su c h as “ el ic it in g or fai li ng to el ic it ev id en ce he lp fu l to on e [in te res t] bu t ha rm fu l to th e ot he r.” Gas to n v. St at e , 13 6 S.W .3d 31 5, 31 8 (Tex .App .–Ho us to n [1 Dis t.] 20 04 , pe t. di sm is se d) ....The on ly s t

co nd uc t of at to rn ey B a r r a z a refl ect ed by th e ev id en ce in th e reco rd was th e pl ea b a r g a in it se lf. The re is no ev id en ce of ho w th e te rm s of th e pl ea was reac he d, su ch as ne go ti at io ns be h i n d t h e pl ea. The re is no ev id en ce th at he to ok an y sp eci fic act io n to us e th e te rm s of Alv arez ’ pl ea to g a i n s o m e pa rti cu la r co nc es si on fo r Ji cal an San ch ez ( a k a J i c a la n Lop ez). The re is no ev id en ce of th e in ve st i g a t i o n th at Barr aza m ay or m ay ha ve no t ha ve un de rta ke n to de ve lo p a de fen se , pa rti cu la rly as to th e co cai ne fo un d in hi s h o u s e a nd on hi s pe rs on

. W e ack no wled ge th at th e in di ct m en t an d p l e a oc cu rred al m os t fif

te en y ears be fo re th e App li cat io n was fil ed , bu t Alv arez st il l bo re th e bu rd en to pr es en t so m e ev id en ce of each el e men t o f h i s cl ai m s. Opi ni on , p. 1 3.

In Duk es v. W ar de n , 40 6 U.S. 25 0 92 S.Ct 15 51 , 32 L.Ed.2 d 45 (1 97 2) , th e pe ti ti on er

co m pl ai ne d th at an at to rn ey fro m th e sa m e la w fir m rep res en ti n g h i m w h o was

rep res en ti ng two fem al e de fen da nt s ha d pl aced th e pr im ary bl am e on hi m a s th e

pr im ary cu lp ab le pa rty fo r th e fem al es co nd uc t du rin g th e se nt en ci ng of th e two

fem al es in th ei r cas es

. The Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t reject ed th i s cl ai m

. 40 6
U.S., at 25 6. It i n s t e ad ad op te d th e Co nn ect ic ut Su pr em e co ur t’s an al y si s of th e

co nf li ct of in te res t cl ai m pr es e n t e d , t o w it : “ [Pet it io ne r] do es no t cl ai m , an d it is

no whe re in di cat ed in th e fin di ng , no r co ul d it be in ferr ed fro m th e fin di ng , th at ei th er

Att or ne y Zacca gn in o or A tt or ne y Dela ne y in du ced [p et it io ne r] to pl ead gu il ty in

Pag e 5fu rth eran ce of a pl an to ob ta in m or e fav or ab le co ns id erat io n fro m th e co ur t fo r ot he r

cl ie nt s.” Pe ti ti on er h as m ad e su ch a sh owi ng in th is cas e.

In hi s writ ap pl ic at io n, Pet it io ne r Dan ie l Alv arez de m on st rat ed t h a t h i s tri al

co un se l, Att or ne y Man ue l Barr aza, en te red in an ag reem en t wit h San ti ag o San ch ez

whi ch was de tri m en ta l to hi m

. Pu rs ua nt to th ei r co nt ract ua l ag reem en t, San ti ag o

San ch ez ag reed to pa y th e fee to ha ve Att or ne y Barr aza rep res en t bo th Dan ie l Alv arez

an d hi m (San ch ez) on th e sa m e po ss es si on of co cai ne ch arg e th ey ha d be en arre st ed

fo r if Att or ne y Barr aza pr om is e d t o s e c u r e a di sm is sa l of hi s cas e in ex ch an ge fo r pl ead in g Alv arez to th e co cai ne po ss es si on ch arg e. Alv arez fil ed a swo rn al le ga ti on

whi ch es ta bl is he d th at on th e da te he en te red hi s g u i l t y pl ea he “ un aware of th e

co nf li ct of in te res t ru le s an d th at an at to rn ey sh ou ld no t rep res en t two co -d efen da nt s

ch arg ed wit h th e sa m e of

fen se .” CR, at 11 5. Alv arez fu rth er de m on st rat ed in a swo rn

affi da vi t th at he was un aware of th e s p e c i f ic ag reem en t co -d efen da nt San ch ez ha d

m ad e wit h Att or ne y Barr aza whe reb y Att or ne y Barr aza was to se cu re Alv arez ’ gu il ty pl ea to th e co cai ne ch arg e in ex ch an ge fo r se cu rin g a di sm is sa l fo r San ch ez on th e

sa m e co cai ne po ss es si on cha rg e.

Att or ne y Barr aza co m

pl ie d wit h th is pa rt of th e ag reem en t by se cu rin g a gu il ty pl ea by Alv arez to th e co cai ne po ss es si o n ch arg e an d se cu rin g a di sm is sa l fo r

San ch e z as to th is sa m e ch arg e. Bas ed on th e ev id en ce pr es en te d by Alv arez in hi s

Pag e 6writ ap pl ic at io n, it can th eref or e be in ferr ed th at Att or ne y Man u e l B a r r aza in du ced

Dan ie l Al va rez to pl ead gu il ty in ex ch an ge fo r hi s pro m is e to se cu re a di sm is sa l fo r

co -d efen da nt San ti ag o San ch ez. Bas ed on th e ho ld in g in Duk es v. W ar de n , su pr a, th e

co ur t of ap pe al s erre d in ru li ng th at Dan ie l Alv arez di d no t m ak e a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng

th at Att or ne y Barr aza’s joi nt rep res en ta ti on of San ch ez an d hi m res ul te d in an act ua l

co nf li ct of i nt eres t wh ic h de pr iv ed Alv arez of effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. Thi s

Co ur t s ho ul d t he refo re g ran t re vi ew of th is po in t fo r rev ie w.

2. The in effe cti ve as si st an ce tes t ad op ted by the co urt of ap pea ls in thi s ca se co nfl ic ts w ith an d m is st at es the tes t ad op ted by the U.S. Supr eme Cou rt in Cuyl er v. Sul li va n , 44 6 U.S. 3 35 (19 80 )

The co ur t of ap pe al s co rrec tl y ci te s to fo ot no te 52 of th e Te x a s C o u r t of

Cri m in al App eal s’ de ci si on in Ex pa rt e McFar la nd , 16 3 S.W .3d 74 3, 75 9 (Tex

. Cri m .ap p. 20 05 ) as es ta bl is hi ng th at “ The Cu yl er an al y si s ha s two el em en ts : The

ap pl ic an t m

us t de m on st rat e th at (1 ) de fen se co un se l was bu rd en e d b y an act ua l

co nf li ct of in te res t; an d (2 ) th e co nf li ct ha d an ad ve rs e effe ct on sp eci fic in st an ces of

co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce.” Howev er, th is Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s de ci si on in Ex

pa rt e McFa rl an d, s up ra , in co rrec tl y set s fo rth th e Cu

yl er st an da rd

.
In C u y l e r , th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at “ In or de r to es ta bl is h a

vi ol at io n of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, a de fen da nt who rai se d no ob jecti on at tri al m

us t

de m on st ra t e t h a t an act ua l co nf li ct of in te res t ad ve rs el y affe ct ed hi s la wy er's

Pag e 7pe rfo rm an ce.” See Cu yl er v. Su ll iv an , 44 6 U.S. at 34 8- 34 9. Fo r th e co ur t of ap pe al s

to req ui re a writ ap pl ic an t li ke Alv arez to sh ow un de r th e se co nd pr on g of Cu yl er th at

th e act ua l co nf

li ct of in te res t ha d an ad ve rs e effe ct on sp eci fic in st an ces of co un se l’s

pe rfo rm an ce is di ffer en t th an re q u i r i n g t he writ ap pl ic an t to pr ov e th at th e “ act ua l

co nf li ct ad ve rs el y affe ct ed th e la wy er’s pe rfo rm an ce.” I n fact , a pr op er read in g of

Cu y le r le ad to th e co nc lu si on th at on ly an act ua l co nf li ct m us t be sh own to warran t

rev ers al of a de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on

. See Bat y v. Bal kco m , 66 1 F.2 d 39 1 (5 Ci r. th

19 81 ) (h ol di ng th at ‘w e be li ev e a cl os e ex am in at io n of th e op in io n as a who le

in di cat es th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t di d no t in te nd to es ta bl is h a st an da rd req ui rin g pr oo f

of ad ve rs e eff

ect on co un se l i n a dd it io n t o p ro of of a n a ct ua l co nf

li ct of i nt eres t.”

The te st ad op te d by th e co ur t of ap pe al s te st is th us m uc h m or e st rin ge nt th an

th at crea te d in Cu

yl er

. Und er th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ an al y si s, an at t or ne y ’s

pe rfo rm an ce can o n l y fo r sp eci fic in st an ces of th e at to rn ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce (i.e

.
affi rm at iv e co nd uc t). As wo rd ed , th e “ co nf li ct of i nt eres t” t es t crea te d in Cu yl er ,

su pr a, en co m

pa ss es no t on ly th at sp eci fic in st an ces of th e at to rn ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce be

co ns id ered , bu t sp eci fic in st an ces whe re th e a t t o r n e y fai le d to act on be ha lf of th e

cl ie nt . Th us , t he co ur t of ap pe al s in Alv arez ’ cas e th us m is ap pl ie d Cu yl er ba se d on

Pag e 8a fo ot no te ta ke n fro m Ex pa rt e McFar la nd , su pr a. It m ay be t h a t t h e C o ur t of 1

Cri m in al App eal s ap pl ie d Cu yl e r t es t th e way it di d ba se d on th e fact s an d

ci rcu m st an ces of

Ex pa re McFar la nd , su pr a. Bu t fo r th e co ur t o f ap pe al s to rev is e

th e Cu yl er tes t u nd er t he fact s o f Alv arez ’ cas e was cle arl y im pr op er.

Alv arez was fo un d gu il ty pu rs ua nt to a g u il ty pl ea – rat he r th an a tri al

. The refo re, un li ke cas es res ol ve d by a co nt es te d tri al , it is di ffi cu lt to as cert ai n ex act ly

wha t Att or ne y Barr aza’s th ou gh t pr oc es se s or wha t hi s st rat eg y was

. Thi s is be cau se

th e ev id en ce ne ed ed to de m on st r a t e w ha t hi s th ou gh pr oc es se s were or hi s tri al

st rat eg y do es no t ap pe ar in th e tra ns cri pt of Alv arez ’ gu il ty p l e a

. The ki nd of

ev id en ce whi ch wil l of

te n m an ife st it se lf do es no t ex is t in th is cas e be cau se Alv arez ’

cas e ne ve r wen t to tri al

. Fo r th is reas on , t he fai lu re of Alv arez ’ at to rn ey to act (i.e

.
hi s om i s s i o n s ) sh ou ld no t ha ve be e di sr eg ard ed in co nd uc ti ng a co nf li ct an al y si s.

Att or ne y Barr aza m ay ha ve be en ab le to pl ead Alv arez to a le ss er ch arg e or ob ta in ed

d i sm is sa l of hi s co cai ne po ss es si on ch arg e in ex ch an ge fo r co nv in ci ng Al v a r e z t o

co op erat e as a wit ne ss fo r th e Gov ern m en t ag ai ns t co -d efen da nt San ti ag o San ch ez.

See e.g

. Ba t

y v. Bal kco m , 66 1 F.2 d 39 1 (5 Ci r. 19 81 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at an act ua l th

Petitioner bases this contention on the Court of Criminal Appea ls’ decision in Routier v. 1 State , 112 S.W .3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). There , it held that where the Culyer v. Sullivan standard a

pplies, “to obtain relief

, the appe llant must show that (1) an ac tual conflict of inter est exis ted, (2) w hich af

fec ted [the trial attorney ’s] repre sentation of the a ppellant.” Id. , at 584. No mention is made of proof having to be made tha t the conflict ha d an adve rse e ffe ct of spec ific instances of

the attorne y ’s per formanc e, as in Alva rez’ ca se. Pag e 9co nf

li ct ex is ts whe re th e po ss ib il it y th at on e co -d efen da nt ca n b e n e f i t fro m a

co op erat io n a gr eem en t wi th th e g ov ern m en t).

As th e m or e cu lp ab le pa rty, reac hi ng an ag reem en t wit h th e St at e to pr os ecu te

San ch ez, a rep eat cri m in al of fen de r, on th e co cai ne po ss es si on ch arg e. Thi s wou ld

ha ve be en a ve ry vi ab le st rat eg y whi ch Att or ne y Barr aza co ul d ha ve pu rs ue d, bu t fo r

th e co nf li ct of in te res t wit h whi ch he w a s c on fro nt ed

. Ano th er st rat eg y Att or ne y

Barr aza co ul d ha ve em

pl oyed wou ld ha ve be en to sh ift th e bl am e fo r th e of fen se on

San ti ag o San ch ez du rin g tri al

. See e.g

. Uni te d St at es v. Mer s , 70 1 F.2 d 13 21 (1 1 Ci r. th

1 98 3)

. Thi s st rat eg y was vi ab le , gi ve n San ch ez’ pr io r co nv ic ti on s as a r e p e a t

of fen de r an d on th e ev id en ce th at he was th e m on ey p e r s on be hi nd th e co cai ne

po ss es si on of

fen se of w h i c h b o th he an d Alv arez were in di ct ed

. Bu t Att or ne y

Barr aza co ul d no t ha ve pu rs ue d th is st rat eg y at th e ti m e Alv arez cas e was be fo re hi m

be cau se th is wou ld ha ve req ui red Att or ne y Barr aza to im pl ic at e co -d efen da nt

San ch ez, whe n he ha d ex pr es sl y ag reed to se cu re a di sm is sa l of t h e co cai ne

po ss es si on ch arg es bro ug ht ag ai ns t Sa nc he z.
The c ou rt o f ap pe al s t he refo re err ed in tre at in g Att or ne y Barr aza’s fa il ur e to

pu rs ue th es e vi ab le de fen se an d tri al st rat eg ie s as in co ns eq ue nt ia l ba se d on it s be li ef

th at Alv arez co ul d no t de m on st rat e th at th e co nf li ct ha d an ad ve rs e effe ct on sp eci fic

in st an ces of hi s at to rn ey ’s pe rfo rm an ce. Uni te d State s v. Sa la do , 33 9 F.3 d 28 5 (2 00 3)

.

Pag e 10It al so fai le d to reco gn iz e th e well es ta bl is he d ru le “ th at whe n co un se l is co nf ro nt ed

wit h an act ua l co nf

li ct of in te res t, pr ejud ic e m us t be pr es um ed , an d ex cep t un de r th e

m os t ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces , th e erro r can no t be co ns id ered ha rm le ss ."

Tu rn qu es t v. W

ai nr ig ht , 65 1 F.2 d 33 1, 33 4 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 ). Thi s ru le is pa rti cu la rly

ap pl ic ab le to th e gu il ty pl ea co nt ex t, whe re an at to rn ey can in effe ct hi de th e co nf li ct

of in te res t m

uc h be tt er th an in th e tri al se tt in g. Mo reo ve r, an at to rn ey ’s co nf li ct

sh ou ld no t be ex cu se d m erel y be cau se he ha s in du ced a co -d efen da nt to pl ead gu il ty

in ord er t o avo id th e co nf li ct whi ch wil l nece ss ari ly m an ife st it se lf if he is forc ed to

co nt in ue fo rward an d de fen d th at cl ie nt in a co nt es te d jury tri al

. See Bat y v. Bal kco m ,

su pr a. 66 1 F.2 d at 39 7 (5 Ci r. 19 81 ). The co ur t of ap pe al s li m it ed an al y si s to th

in qu iri ng whe th er “ th e co nf li ct ha d an ad ve rs e effe ct on sp eci fic in st an c e s of

co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce” th us di st or ts th e ru li ng an d an al y si s pr ov id ed by th e Su pr em e

Co ur t in Cu

yl er v. Su ll iv an , su pr a. As no te d ab ov e, th is te st fo r de te rm in in g whe th er

an act ua l co nf

li ct of in te res t act ua ll y ex is ts , as se t ou t in Cu yl er v. Su ll iv an , su pr a, is

m uc h b ro ad er. Fo r th is reas on , rev ie w of t hi s p oi nt sh ou ld be gra nt ed

.
PRAYER

Fo r al l of th e reas on s st at ed ab ov e, th e Co ur t of Cri m in al App eal s sh ou ld gr an t

th is pe ti ti on on bo th po in ts for rev ie w id en ti fie d a nd ord er b rie fin g.

Pag e 11Res pe ct fu ll y su bm it te d,

/s/ James D. Luca s JAM ES D. LUCAS Att or ne y for App el le e 23 16 Mo nt an a Ave nu e El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 3 Tel. (9 15 ) 53 2- 88 11 Fax (91 5) 53 2- 88 07 SBN 1 26 58 30 0

CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE WI TH RULE 9.4

Thi s p et it io n for di sc ret io na ry rev ie w fil ed in su pp or t o f th ereo f co m pl y wit h

th e type-v ol um e li m it at io ns of 9.4

. It co nt ai n 3,2 83 wor ds , ex cl ud in g th e pa rts of th e

br ie f ex em

pt ed by 9.4(1 ); a nd th is br ie f co m pl ie s wi th th e typefa ce re qu ire m en ts of

9.4 (e) be cau se th is br ie f ha s be en pr ep ared in a pr op or ti on al ly sp aced typefa ce us in g

Co rel W or d P erfe ct in Tim es New Ro m an , 14 -p oi nt

. /s / Ja mes D. Luca s JAM ES D. LUCAS

CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE
I, Ja m es D. Luc as , he reb y cert ify th at on May 18 , 20 15 , a tru e an d co rrec t co py of th e fo reg oi ng do cu m en t was ser ve d o n t he fol lo win g b y ele ct ro ni c m ean s:

Hon . Jai m e Esp arza , Dis tri ct Att or ne y St at e Pro se cu ti ng Att or ne y 50 0 Eas t Sa n An to ni o P.O. Box 12 40 5 El Pas o, Tex as 79 90 1 Aus ti n, Tex as 78 71 1

/s / Ja mes D. Luca s JAM ES D. LUCAS

Pag e 12APPENDIX

1- COURT OF APPEALS OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Pag e 13COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: DANIEL ALVAREZ §
§
§
§
§
§ No. 08

- 13

- 00025

- CR

Appeal from

384t h District Court

of El Paso County, Texas
(TC # 960D10169

- 384

- 1)

O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding raising issues familiar to this Court.
The trial court granted the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus based on the belief that

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky 1 applied retroactively to guilty pleas taken before Padilla
was decided. A case from this Court supported that view at the time the Application was
granted, but as noted below, subsequent decisions from the United Sates Supreme Court and
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have taken a different tact. Faced with this reality, Daniel
Alvarez now falls back on a waiver argument and an alternate basis to affirm the trial court ’ s
decision. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the trial court ’ s issuance of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus.

1 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). Padilla requires defense counsel to advise defendants of the immigration consequences of a plea agreement if they could easily be determined from reading the federal removal statute. 559 U.S. at 368, 130 S.Ct. at 1483.2 FACTUAL SUMMARY
Daniel Alvarez pleaded guilty to possession of more than four grams, but less than 200
grams of cocaine on June 9, 1997 . He was given deferred adjudicati on with five years of
probation, a fine , and community service. Before admitting to the offense, the trial judge

admonished him that “ you can be deported if you plead guilty to that offense, and you can ’ t return to the United States legally, [and] that any application you make for citizenship will be

denied. ” Plea paperwork also contained his acknowledgment that: “ I further understand that if I

am not a citizen of the United S t ates of America a p lea of guilty or nolo contendere to this
offense in this cause may result in my being deported, excluded from further admission into the
United States, or denied naturalization under Federal law. ” Alvarez entered his plea and a s far as

the record shows , he successfully completed the term of that supervised release.

The possession charge grew out of these facts: an undercover police officer observed
Alvarez driving a 1986 Oldsmobile which pull ed up alongside another car to make what
appeared to be an illegal drug sale. The officer followed Alvarez and witnessed several other
suspected drug transactions. The police then followed Alvarez to his residence to identify where

he lived. The undercover officer watched Alvarez for several weeks and observed him engaging
in what appeared to be more drug deals, always using the O ldsmobile to make deliveries.
The police arranged with the City Sanitation Department to obtain the trash from

Alvarez ’ residence. In his rubbish, they found plastic packaging with cocaine residue. B ased on
what they ha d learned, the police obtained a s earch warrant for the Oldsmobile and Alvarez ’
residence. When the warrant was executed at the residence, the police found a plastic baggie
with 7.5 grams of what was later identified as cocaine in a shirt hanging in the closet. There
were other people at the house at the time of the search, including Alvarez ’ wife.3

The police executed the search warrant for the Oldsmobile by stopping the vehicle while
Alvarez, and another person identified as Julian Jicalan Lopez , were driving around. A se a rch of

the vehicle turned up an additional amount of cocaine found in a plastic baggie in an air

conditioner vent

. Alvarez was then arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. An other
baggie of cocaine was found on the floorboard of the police cruiser where Al varez was sitting

. Jicalan Lopez had no identification w hen he was arrested. He was taken back to his apartment
which he agreed could be searched. The search turned up a large amount of cash

. Both Alvarez and Jicalan Lopez were indicted on charges ste mming from the possession
and suspected sale of the cocaine. Alvarez was indicted for unlawful possession of a controlled
substance in the Penalty Group I (Cocaine) exceeding 4 grams but less than 200 grams.
Jicalan Lopez, whose real name is Santiago Jic alan Sanchez, hired attorney Manny

Barraza to defend both h im and Alvarez. Jicalan Sanchez (aka Jicalan Lopez) executed an

affidavit , submitted in this proceeding, which swore that he paid Barraza $15,000 to defend him

and also paid $5,000 to Barraza to a rrange for a guilty plea for Alvarez. His affidavit reads in

part: I also paid Manuel Barraza $5,000.00 to plea Sr. Daniel Alvarez guilty and to obtain probation for him. By directing Attorney Barraza to plead Sr. Daniel Alvarez Manuel Barraza guilty to the cocaine possession charge, Attorney Barraza was able to get me deport ed with no charges, even though I had a prior arrest record. Attorney Barraza knew I was guilty of the charge because I explained the circumstances of the arrest to him and explained to him that the cocaine which had been seized from the vehicle belonged to me

. However , I made it very clear to Attorney Barraza that I did not intend to plead guilty to the cocaine possession charge and wanted the case dismissed. It was explained to hi m that Sr. Daniel Alvarez would take the ‘ fall ’ for the offense. Attorney Barraza agreed to this arrangement and seemed to be satisfied, since I was the person paying for Sr. Daniel Alvarez ’ legal defense.
While this was taking place, I led Sr. Daniel Al varez to believe that Attorney Barraza intended to defend him to the best of his ability, when actually, Attorney Barraza and I had already agreed to have Sr. Daniel Alvarez plead guilty to the4

indicted charge so the charge against me could later be dismi ssed. Sr. Daniel Alvarez, who had no knowledge of the cocaine in the vehicle, did not know that cocaine was inside the vehicle. Nevertheless, I arranged to have Attorney Barraza to work out a plea of guilty with the State so that I could be released from the charge.
As noted above, Alvarez plead ed guilty with Manny Barraza as his counsel. Jicalan
Sanchez (aka Jicalan Lopez) apparently absconded only to be re

- arrested in 2002 on other drug
charges. The record indicates that he pled guilty to th ose other drug charge s in 2003 and
received a six year sentence to be served concurrently with a federal sentence. As a part of that
plea deal, t he 1997 charge was dismissed because Jicalan Sanchez (aka Jicalan Lopez) was

“ convicted in another cause. ” Manny Barra za was his counsel of record at the 2003 plea.
Unfortunately for Alvarez, who is a resident alien, the federal government consider s his
deferred adjudication to be a conviction for the purposes of removal. S tate v. Guerrero , 400
S.W.3d 576, 58 8 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013)( state based deferred adjudications are still considered
final convictions under federal immigration scheme). Consequently, Alvarez s ought to undo his
earlier guilty plea.

P ROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Alvarez filed his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 27, 2012. The

A pplication raised two issues. First, Alvarez contended that his plea counsel did not properly
advise him on the immigration aspects of the guilty plea , which we refer to as th e Padilla
ground

. His second argument contends that his plea counsel, Manny Barraza, had a conflict of
interest in that he represented two clients with divergent interests. We refer to this as the Cuyler

v. Sullivan 2 or conflict of interest ground

.

2 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)

. Under Cuyler
, a defendant can establish a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel if he can show “ that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer ’ s performance. ” 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. at 1719.5

The trial court held a hearing on the Application on December 17, 2012. Hab eas counsel

offered an affidavit from Alvarez, the affidavit of his co

- defendant Jicalan Sanchez (aka Jicalan
Lopez), and offered testimony from Alvarez ’ wife, Anabel Alvarez. 3 Ma nny Barraza did not
testify, in person or by affidavit. 4

The trial cour t later granted the A pplication, vacating the 1997 guilty plea. The court
issued eight Findings of Fact a nd two Conclusions of Law. The findings germane to the Padilla

claim include:
Findings of Fact

. . .
6. Attorney Barraza did not advise Alvarez of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea prior to June 9, 1997, the date Alvarez pled guilty. Specifically, Alvarez was never advised that a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of more than 4 but less than 200 grams would subject him to deportation or removal from the United States.

Conclusions of Law

. . .
2. Applicant Alvarez was deprived of effective assistance by Attorney Barraza ’ s failure to inform Alvarez of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea to the cocaine possession charge.

The findings germane to Alvarez ’ Cuyler v. Sullivan conflict of interest claim include

these : Findings of Fact

. . . 4. Shortly after Alvarez ’ arrest, the person then

- known as Julian Jicalan Lopez retained Attorney Manuel Barraza to represent both Daniel Alvarez and himself

3 Counsel represented that Daniel Alvarez was confined at an “ immigration camp ” as of the date of the hearing.

4 We take notice that attorney Manny Barraza was convicted on June 1, 2010 of two counts of wire fraud, deprivation of honest services, making false statements, and he had been sentenced to five years in a federal prison. See 75 T EX .B.J. 480

- 81 (June 2012). On April 23, 2012 he was disbarred. Id

.6

by paying Barraza $15,000.00 for his representation and $5,000.00 to represent Alvarez. The t erms of this agreement were that Barraza would seek to obtain a probation sentence for Alvarez on the cocaine possession charge and secure a dismissal for Julian Jicalan Lopez on the same charge.

. . . 7. The Court finds that Attorney Manuel Barraza labored under an actual conflict of interest by representing both Alvarez and Sanchez in connection with the pending cocaine possession charge.

8

. The Court finds that Attorney Barraza ’ s dual representation of Alvarez and Sanchez had an adverse effect on specific instances of counsel ’ s representation.
Under the heading “ Conclusions of Law ” appear s a typewritten finding that “ Applicant
Daniel Alvarez was deprived of effective assistance of counsel by reason of Attorney Manuel

Barraza ’ s dual representat i on of both Alvarez and Sanchez on the same cocaine possession
charge. ” There is a handwritten mark , which appears to be a strike

- out, through this Conclusion

of Law.
In response to a motion filed by the State, we issued an order directi ng the trial court to
clarify what Findings of Fact and C onclusions of L aw he relied up on to grant habeas corpus

relief . In reply, the trial court issued a new set of findings on May 31, 2013 that are limited to
only those original findings germane to the Padilla claim. The trial judge did not include any of
his original findings, as set out above, which pertained to the Cuyler v. Sullivan conflict of

interest claim.
The State appeals and raises two issues. In Issue One, the State argues that Padilla
cannot be applied retroactively. In Issue Two, the State argues that even if the rule applied
retroactively, Alvarez failed to show any prejudic e

. STANDARD OF REVIEW As the applicant for the W rit of H abeas C orpus, Alvarez was obliged to prove his
allegat ions by a preponderance of the evidence. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 6647

(Tex.Crim.App. 2006)

. In reviewing the trial court ’ s decis ion to grant or deny relief on th e

A pplication , we review the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court ’ s ruling and uphold

it absent an abuse of discretion. Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804, 819 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)

. Reviewing courts should afford almost total deference to a trial judge ’ s determination of the
historical facts supported by the record, especially when the fact findin gs are based on an
evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d at 819 n. 67

. When
dealing with mixed questions of law and fact, we give the same level of deference if the
resolution of those questions turn on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor , and review de

novo those mixed questions of law and fact that do not depend upon credibility and demeanor.

Id. at 819

. The reviewing court should affirm as long as the decision is correct on any t heory of law
applicable to the case. Ex parte Primrose, 950 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Tex.App.

- - Fort Worth 1997,
pet. ref ’ d) ; s ee, e.g., Devoe v. State, 354 S.W .3d 457, 469 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (stating that
appellate court will not disturb trial court ’ s evidentiary ruling if ruling is correct on any theory of
law applicable to ruling, even if trial court gave wrong reason for correct ruling); Mahaffey v.
State, 316 S.W.3d 633, 637 (T ex.Crim. App. 2 010) (holding that State could permissibly make
new argument in support of trial court ’ s ruling for first time on appeal because “ an appellate
court will uphold the trial court ’ s ruling if that ruling is ‘ reasonably supported by the record and
is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case ’” ) quoting State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587,
590 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)

.
PADILLA ISSUE

Alvarez asserted below that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his
attorney failed to apprise him of the immigration implications of his decision to plead guilty.8

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “ I n all criminal p rosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right

. . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ” U.S. Const.

amend. VI

. The Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonably effective assistance of counsel.
Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.C t. 2052, 2063

- 64, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984 );

Monreal v. State, 947 S.W.2d 559, 564 (Tex.Crim

. App. 1 997)

. To prove his plea was
involuntary because of ineffective assistance, Alvarez must show (1) counsel ’ s representation/
advice fell below an objective standard and (2) this deficient performance prejudiced the defense
by causing him to give up h is right to a trial. See Ex parte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530, 536
(Tex.Crim. App. 1 997)

. In reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we follow the United States
Supreme Court ’ s two

- pronged test in Strickland

. Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 56

- 57
(Tex .Crim.App. 1986)

. Under the Strickland test, an app l icant must show that counsel ’ s performance was “ deficient, ” and that the “ deficient performance prejudiced the defense. ”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064 ; Tong v. State, 25 S. W.3d 707, 712
(Tex.Crim.App. 2000).

In the context of Alvarez ’ claim, t he Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment
requires a criminal defense attorney to inform his client of the risk of automatic deportation as a
result of his guilty plea. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 368

- 69, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483 , L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) ; State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576, 587 (Tex.Crim. App. 2 013)

. The

Padilla decision issued on March 31, 2010. Padilla , 559 U.S. at 356, 130 S.Ct. at 1473. When

Alvarez ’ s application was originally heard by the trial court , it was an open question as to

whether Pad illa applied retroactively to those cases where the plea was taken before Padilla was
handed down. A decision of this Court had held Padilla should be applied retroactive ly

. Ex9

p arte De Los Reyes , 350 S.W.3d 723 , 729 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso 201 1 ) , rev ’ d , 392 S.W.3d 675
( Tex.Crim.App. 2013 )

. But soon thereafter , the retroactivity issue was resolved against Alvarez,
both by the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Chaidez v.
United States,

___ U .S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013) ; Ex parte De Los Reyes,
392 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013)

. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has further clar ified that while normally an order of
deferred adjudication is not considered a final conviction for state law, it is for the purposes of
federal immigration law. State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W .3d at 587

- 88

. F or purposes of a Padilla
analysis, a final conviction occurs at the time a defendant pleaded guilty and was placed on
deferred adjudication. Id

. Thus, if an A pplicant made their plea before March 31, 2010 when

Padilla was handed down , the failure of trial counsel or the trial j udge to inform a defendant of
the deportation consequences of the guilty plea does not entitle the defendant to habeas corpus

relief. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d at 588

. In this case, it is undisputed that Alvarez ’ s guilty plea , and even his completed term of

deferred adjudication , occurred long before Padilla was decided . The trial court would have

abused its discretion in not applying pre

- Padilla law. See Ex parte Sudhakar, 406 S.W.3d 699,

702 (Tex. App.

-- Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref ’ d). Under that law, the Sixth Amendment
rig ht to counsel does not extend to “ collateral ” consequences of a prosecution. Ex parte
Morrow, 952 S.W.2d at 536

. Deportation is a collateral consequence of a prosecution.
Hernandez v. State, 98 6 S.W.2d 817, 821 (Tex. App.

-- Austin 1999, pet. ref ’ d) , citing State v.
Jimenez, 987 S.W.2d 886, 888

- 89 (Tex.Crim. App. 1 999)

. Consequently, Alvarez ’ plea was not

deficient because of any failure of his trial counsel to warn him about the immigration
consequences of his plea. See Ex parte Sudhakar, 406 S.W.3d at 702

.10

Alvarez ’ sole response to this seismic shift in the case law against him is to argue that the
State waived the point

. He contends that by failing to obtain a n explicit ruling from the trial
judge on the retroactiv ity issue , the State cannot raise it now

. We disagree.
Generally to preserve error a the party must “ let the trial judge know what he wants, why

he thinks h imself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him at a

time when the trial c ourt is in a proper position to do something about it. ” Lankston v. State, 827
S.W.2d 907, 908

- 09 (Tex.Crim. App. 1 992) ; T EX .R.A PP .P. 33.1. T he record i n this case i s clear

that the State raised the question of retroactivity below . The State devoted fiftee n pages of its
response to the A pplication outlining the retroactivity issue, including alerting the trial court that
the U.S. Supreme Court had accepted the petition for certiorari in Chaidez , and that the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals had granted the petition for dis cretionary review in De Los Reyes

. At
the hearing on the Application , the State restated its position that it did not believe that Padilla
should be applied retroactively, but conceded that the trial court m ight be bound by this C ourt ’ s opinion in De Los Reyes

. When the trial court granted the Application, it necessarily overruled

the State ’ s retroactivity arguments. We find no waiver on this record.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE

In his b rief, A lvarez appears to argue that the trial court ’ s ruling can alternatively be
upheld on his Cuyler v. Sullivan conflict of interest ground that was originally raised in his
Application, but not accepted by the trial court. Alvarez con t ends that he obtained sufficient
findings of fact to allow this Court to sustain the writ on that alternate ground. The State did not

favor us with a r eply b rief to respond to this contention

. While most ineffective assistance of counsel claims are resolved applying the Strickland

test , when the underlying failing of trial counsel involves a conflict of interest, a different11

analysis applies. Conflict of interest claims for which no objection was timely made at the
original trial or plea are analyzed under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64
L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)

. Acosta v. State, 233 S .W.3d 349, 356 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) ; James v.
State, 763 S.W.2d 776, 778

- 79 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989)

. The Cuyler analysis has two elements.
The applicant must demonstrate that (1) defense counsel was burdened by an actual conflict of
interest; and (2) the conflict had an adverse effect on specific instances of counsel ’ s performance. Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743, 759 n.52 (Tex .Crim. App. 2 005) ; Pina v.

St ate, 29 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex.App.

- - E l Paso 2000, pet. ref ’ d)

. Joint representation does not automatically create an actual conflict of interest. See
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 482, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) (explaining that
joint representation is not per se ineffective assistance); James, 763 S.W.2d at 778 (same ). An

actu al conflict of interest exists when “ one defendant stands to gain significantly by counsel
adducing probative evidence or advancing plausible arguments that are damaging to the cause of

a co

- defendant whom counsel is also representing. ” James, 763 S.W.2d at 779

. However, the
failure to emphasize the culpability of one defendant over the other does not create an actual

conflict. Kegler v. State , 16 S.W.3d 908, 913 (Tex.App.

-- Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet

. ref ’ d) ;
Howard v. State, 966 S.W.2d 821, 827 (Tex.App.

- - Austin 1998, pet. ref ’ d)

.
To meet the second Cuyler test

-- show ing an adverse effect

-- an Applicant must demonstrate that some plausible defense strategy or tactic might have been pursued , but was not , because of the conflict of interest. Ramirez v. State, 13 S.W.3d 482, 487 (Tex. App.

-- Corpus
Christi 2000) , pet. dism ’ d, improvidently granted, 67 S.W.3d 177 (Tex.Crim. App. 2 001)

. If the

A pp licant shows both elements, then prejudice is presumed. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 692, 104

S.Ct. 2052 ; Mitchell v. State, 989 S.W .2d 747, 748 (Tex.Crim. App. 1 999)

.12

Our first hurdle in analyzing this claim is that the trial court , while agreeing with some of
the predicates of the argument, rejected its conclusion. The trial judge originally ma de findings
that Manny Barraza labo red under an actual conflict of interest that had “ an adverse effect on
specific instances of counsel ’ s representation

. ” But the trial court affirmatively struck through a
proposed finding that the conflict denied Alvarez effective assistance of counsel

. I n response to

this Court ’ s order , the trial court clearly indicated the conflict of interest findings did not inform
his decision to grant the writ. 5
Even if the earlier finding s of fact w ere meant to survive the newe r issued findings, we

woul d be inclined to view them as insufficient to sustain a Cuyl e r type challenge. To be sure,

there is some evidence of the existence of a true conflict of interest presented on the record. The
allegation that attorney Manny Barraza accepted the representation o f two persons with the intent
to plead one to the detriment of the other is p recise ly the type of conflict alluded in Dukes v.
Warden, 406 U.S. 250, 92 S.Ct. 1551, 32 L.Ed.2d 45 (1972) . In Dukes
, one of several co

defendants represented by the same firm of attorneys complained that his guilty plea was tainte d
by a conflict of interest. He had learned that his attorney when pleading out the co

- defendants
had tried to gain leniency for the other defendants by suggesting that he was the more culpable

defendant

. Id., 406 U.S. at 25 4 , 92 S.Ct. at 1 554

. The c ourt rejected the claim , but specifically

referenced a finding of the lower court that there was no evidence that the attorney “ induced
[Dukes] to plead guilty in furtherance of a plan to obtain more favorable consideration from the

court for other clients. ” Id.
, 406 U.S. at 25 7, 92 S.Ct. at 1554 ; J ames , 763 S.W.2d at 784

5 We note that the trial judge signed the order with the new Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on May 31, 2013 which was after the United States Supreme Court decided Ch ai dez and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided De Los Reyes, ending the retroactivity debate in Texas, and thus effectively undermining the only rationale for his decision. Had the trial court had any belief that the conflict of interest issue had merit, we would have thought he would have included it in his findings at that time.13

(Clinton, J., concurring)(noting this distinction drawn in Dukes ). There is, however, some
evidence on this record of a plan to favor one defendant over the other.

But i n looking at this record , we are not directed to any evidence supporting the second
Cuylar predicate that the conflict had an adverse effect on specific instances of attorney

Barraza ’ s conduct. “ An appellant must identify specific instances in the record that reflect a

choice tha t counsel made between possible alternative courses of action, such as ‘ eliciting (or
failing to elicit) evidence helpful to one [interest] but harmful to the other. ’” Gaston v. State,
136 S.W.3d 315, 318 (Tex. App.

-- Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. struck) (en banc) , quoting
Ramirez v. State, 13 S .W.3d 482, 488 (Tex. App.

-- Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism ’ d). The trial

court ’ s original finding s contain the relevant language from Cuyl e r , but offer no clue as to what
specific instances of conduct were adversely affected

. See Ex parte Flores , 387 S.W.3d 626, 634
(Tex.Crim.App. 2012)(a trial court ’ s findings of fact and conclusions of law should do more than
more than restate the parties ’ arguments). The only conduct of attorney Barraza reflected by the
evidence in the record was the plea bargain i tself. There is no evidence of how the terms of the
plea was reached, such the negotiations behind the plea

. There is no evidence that he took any
specific action to use the terms of Alvarez ’ plea to gain some particular concession for Jicalan
Sanchez (a ka Jicalan Lopez)

. There is no evidence of the investigation that Barraza may or may
not have undertaken to develop a defense, particularly as to the cocaine found in his house and
on his person. We acknowledge that the indictment and plea occurred almos t fifteen year s before the Application was filed, but Alvarez still bore the burden to present some evidence of

each element of his claims. 6

6 We note that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently referenced the consequence of the potential loss of evidence when habeas applications involve pleas and co nvictions occurring many years in the past. Ex parte Smith, 4 44 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014) . The court has now specifically authorized habeas courts to sua sponte raise the issue of laches, looking in part to the prejudice occasioned by reconstructing events long past. Ex parte14

In the cases where a conflict of inter e st was found, the courts could identify in the record
specific instances o f attorney conduct affected by the conflict

. Holloway, 4 35 U.S. at 48 0 , 98

S.Ct. at 117 6 ( counsel unable to ask one co

- defendant questions on the stand due to confidential
information imparted from co

- defendant); Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470 , 473

- 74
(Tex.Cr im

. App. 1 984) (decision to have defendant testify) ; Ex parte McCormick, 645 S.W.2d
801, 804 (Tex.Cr im

. App. 1 983) (decision to oppose separate trials and use of confessions) ; Ex
parte Parham, 611 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Tex.Cr im

. App. 1 981) (advice giv en to one defendant about
testifying); James, 763 S.W.2d at 778 ( “ In each of these cases the potential for conflict inherent
in multiple representation became an actual conflict due to the inculpatory or exculpatory nature
of testimony or the strategy adopted by defe nse counsel in the particular case. That is not
reflected in the case before us today. ” ) . We simply find none of these type s of specific actions
developed in the record that would support the second Cuyl e r finding , even under our highly

deferential standa rd of review

. And while we recognize that a conflict of interest may implicate not only what an
attorney does, but what he fails to do, Holloway, 435 U.S. at 489

- 90, 98 S.Ct. at 1181 , we do n o t find any specifics of Barraza ’ s conduct, other than attending a plea hearing in this record.
Nothing suggests there was any other viable defense strategy that he could have pursue d , or
action that he could have taken on Alvarez ’ behalf

. 7

Bowman , NO. PD

- 1375

- 14 , ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 WL 6464635 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 19, 2014); E x parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d at 667

.

7 His habeas counsel argued at the hearing that Alvarez could have placed all the blame on Jicalan Sanchez (aka Jicalan Lopez) for the cocaine in the car, or his wife for the cocaine in his house, but habeas counsel ’ s argument is not evidence. Guerrero , 400 S.W.3d at 586 ( habeas counsel ’ s statements not evidence and would not support findings ).15

We sustain Issue One and find Issue Two to be moot. The trial court ’ s judgment is

r eversed and ju dgment is rendered denying the Application for Writ of H abeas C orpus.

T EX .R.A PP .P . 43.2(c)

.

January 28, 2015 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: DANIEL ALVAREZ §
§
§
§
§
§ No. 08

- 13

- 00025

- CR

Appeal from

384th District Court
of El Paso County, Texas
(TC # 960D10169

- 384

- 1)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes that there was error in
the judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and render judgment
denying the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus , in acc ordance with the opinion of this Court,

and that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.