Court Opinion

ID: 9776290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:29:43.223236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:36.641651
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, J.,
concurs in the result with the understanding that applicant is not precluded from filing a subsequent writ, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal under Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Cr.App.1994), for not seeking our review of the Court of Appeals opinion in light of Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1994).
OVERSTREET, J., concurs in the result.
CLINTON, Judge, concurring.
In his application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., applicant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in that his lawyer at his guilty plea proceeding:
“fail[ed] to object to trial court’s failure to fully admonish applicant under Article 26.13 and more specifically failure to admonish as to Article 26.13(a)(4) of the Tex. Code Crim.Pro. in which his failure to object failed to preserve error for review on direct appeal.”
Application, at 2. The short, and wholly dispositive, answer to this claim is that despite counsel's alleged failure to object to the trial court’s failure to admonish his client under the terms of Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P., the court of appeals treated the merits of his claim on direct appeal. Therefore, applicant has not suffered the only prejudice he claims resulted from the alleged ineffectiveness of his counsel. That the court of appeals may have incorrectly disposed of applicant’s claim on the merits, see Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1994), is not a part of his claim today. As Judge Baird points out in his concurring note, our resolution of this matter does not preclude a later claim of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel for failure to pursue applicant’s Article 26.13 claim further along in the appellate process. (This should not be construed, of course, as a *491comment on how that claim might ultimately be resolved.)
In any event, applicant should not prevail because he does not allege that, but for his counsel’s failure to object to the absence of an Article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment, he would not have persisted in his plea of guilty, but would have proceeded to trial instead. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Ex parte Gonzales, 790 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Ex parte Pool, 738 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). It is true that in Morales v. State we held that a complete failure to admonish a defendant pleading guilty as required by Article 26.13(a)(4) is reversible error, whether the defendant demonstrates harm therefrom or not. But the fact that error is not susceptible to a harm analysis is no sure indicator that failure to preserve that error will not be subject to the prejudice prong of the constitutional test for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Batiste v. State, 888 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1994) (failure to preserve a “structural defect,” not subject to constitutional harm analysis, does not necessarily mean claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on that failure will be determined without reference to prejudice prong of Strickland).
The likelihood that the general run of defendants pleading guilty would not have done so had they been properly admonished in accordance with Article 26.13(a)(4) is not great. There is no justification, therefore, for exempting applicant from the obligation of alleging and proving that he himself would not have pled guilty had he been properly admonished. Batiste, supra, at 15. Because he does not, applicant is not entitled to the relief he seeks.
With these observations I join the judgment of the Court.
MALONEY, J., joins.