Reverse and Remand and Opinion Filed February 3, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01705-CR 

JULIO EDGAR RUIZ JR., Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F08-24859-P 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

In a bench trial, Julio Edgar Ruiz Jr. pleaded no contest to the offense of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child. The trial court found Ruiz guilty and assessed punishment at eighteen 

years in prison and a $3000 fine. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues the trial court 

reversibly erred by failing to admonish him about the immigration consequences of his plea. The 

State concedes the issue. After reviewing the record, we agree the trial court erred in failing to 

give the required admonishment and that the error was harmful. We therefore reverse the trial 

court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.1

 1

 The judgment in this cause contains a number of errors, including the offense for which appellant was convicted, the statute for the 

offense, appellant’s plea, and the punishment assessed. Generally, we would modify the judgment to correct these errors; however, our 

disposition of this appeal makes such action unnecessary. 

 
 –2– 

Appellant was indicted on a charge of continuous sexual abuse of a young child. Before 

jury selection was to begin, appellant appeared before the court. A translator was present to 

interpret from English to Spanish and vice-versa. The court explained that if convicted, 

appellant faced a punishment range of twenty-five years to ninety-nine years or life in prison 

with no possibility of probation or parole. The court advised appellant that the State had made a 

plea bargain offer. Thereafter, defense counsel outlined a previous plea offer rejected by 

appellant in which the State offered twenty-five years in exchange for a plea of guilty. Counsel 

then outlined another offer made by the State earlier that day to “reduce” the charge to 

aggravated sexual assault of a child in exchange for a plea of guilty. Defense counsel explained 

to appellant that the range of punishment on the reduced charge was five to ninety-nine years or 

life with the possibility of parole and the possibility of deferred probation. Appellant rejected 

that offer. 

The trial court then spoke to appellant and explained the possible outcomes if he pleaded 

guilty to aggravated sexual assault. The court then informed appellant of yet another offer in 

which the State would reduce the charge to aggravated sexual assault if appellant would agree to 

waive his right to a jury trial and try the case before the court. After conferring with counsel, 

appellant informed the trial court that he accepted the offer. The next day, the State made an oral 

motion to amend the indictment to reflect a charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child, which 

the trial court granted. After a brief discussion, appellant pleaded no contest to aggravated 

sexual assault of a child. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty. 

Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that certain 

admonishments must be given to a defendant who is pleading guilty or nolo contendere. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13(a) (West Supp. 2013). Among other things, the trial court 

must admonish a defendant of “the fact that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States 
 –3– 

of America, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for the offense charged may result in deportation, 

the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law[.]” 

Id. § 26.13(a)(4). Substantial compliance is sufficient unless the defendant shows he did not 

understand the consequences of the plea and was harmed or misled by the admonishments given. 

See id. § 26.13(c). 

When the trial court wholly fails to give the required admonishment, there is no 

substantial compliance with the requirements of article 26.13. See VanNortrick v. State, 227 

S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Failure to give the required admonishment is subject 

to non-constitutional harm analysis set out in rule of appellate procedure 44.2(b), which provides 

that “[a]ny other error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must 

be disregarded.” Id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). The critical inquiry is whether, considering the 

record as a whole, there is a fair assurance that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty or nolo 

contendere would not have changed had the court admonished him. VanNortrick, 227 S.W.3d at 

709. We consider the following relevant factors: (1) whether appellant knew the consequences 

of his plea; (2) the strength of the evidence of appellant’s guilt; and (3) appellant’s citizenship 

and immigration status. Id. at 712. Neither party has the burden to prove harm or harmlessness. 

Id. 

With respect to first factor, there is no discussion or reference to appellant’s citizenship, 

immigration status, or deportation consequences of appellant’s plea at any of the hearings. 

Further, the clerk’s record does not contain any written plea papers that explain such 

consequences. Consequently, the record does not contain any indication that appellant was 

aware of the immigration consequences of his no-contest plea. 

As to the second factor, the court of criminal appeals has indicated that the strength or 

weakness of the evidence against an appellant makes “little difference” to the harm analysis 
 –4– 

where the record does not reveal the defendant knew about the immigration consequences of his 

plea. Id. at 713. Thus, even if the evidence in this case is compelling, we would have no fair 

assurance appellant would not have changed his no-contest plea had he been properly 

admonished. See id. Finally, the clerk’s record in this case includes the arraignment sheet, 

which shows appellant is a citizen of Mexico. Appellant and his sister made references during 

their testimony to appellant’s having grown up outside the United States and to his living in 

Mexico. Having reviewed the factors, we conclude appellant was harmed by the trial court’s 

failure to admonish him on the immigration consequences of his plea. We sustain appellant’s 

sole issue. 

We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

121705F.U05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JULIO EDGAR RUIZ JR., Appellant 

No. 05-12-01705-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F08-24859-P. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED

and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Judgment entered February 3, 2014 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE