Court Opinion

ID: 9683493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:29:45.802006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.215472
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice YÁÑEZ.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The Texas Legislature has mandated that criminal defendants shall be admonished by the trial court that if they are not United States citizens, a guilty plea may result in deportation, exclusion of admission from the country, or denial of naturalization under federal law. See Tex. Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(4) (Vernon 1989). The Legislature intended this admonishment to be given to all criminal defendants accused of felony offenses prior to entering a plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere. See Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922, 930 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (plurality opinion). This admonishment advises the defendant of the consequences of a guilty plea, and aids him in making an informed, voluntary decision. Without the admonishment, the voluntariness of the plea may be undermined.
As a practical matter, providing the admonishment to all criminal defendants pri- or to the acceptance of a guilty plea, regardless of their immigration status, makes sense. State district court judges should not be burdened with determining the citizenship, immigration status, or de-portability of criminal defendants; nor are they authorized to do so. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (1999). Nor should criminal defendants be required to litigate the issue of their citizenship at a state criminal trial.
The remedy available when the trial court wholly fails to give the statutorily required admonishment apparently depends largely upon the appellant’s citizenship or immigration status. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that it would be “absurd” to reverse a conviction where the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment is legally inapplicable to the defendant, that is, where the record “conclusively shows” that the defendant is a United States citizen. Matchett, 941 S.W.2d at 930; Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 263-64 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (adopting the holding and reasoning of Matchett). When the record does not conclusively establish the appellant’s citizenship, however, the failure to give the required admonishment may result in the reversal of a conviction. See Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 658 (conviction reversed where trial court failed to give article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment to non-citizen with expired “green card” who was subjected to heightened deportation status because of the conviction); see also Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (conviction reversed where trial court failed to admonish under article 26.13(a)(4) and record was silent as to citizenship).
Immigration and nationality matters are pre-empted from state action by federal constitutional and statutory provisions. I disfavor opening the door to allow state judges to make citizenship determinations because they are not authorized to adjudicate claims to U.S. citizenship. However, *230if state judges are in effect determining citizenship status of criminal defendants, those determinations should be consistent with existing immigration laws establishing which documents are required to conclusively establish U.S. citizenship. A U.S. birth certificate, a U.S. passport, a certificate of naturalization, or certain baptismal certificates are documents that may conclusively establish citizenship. State agencies involved in providing certain state benefits are required to make eligibility determinations consistent with immigration provisions delineating specific documents that conclusively establish the citizenship or immigration status claimed by the applicant, ie., birth certificates, lawful permanent resident alien cards, and refugee entry documents. Unsubstantiated oral claims to citizenship or legal residency are inadequate to receive state benefits, such as public assistance, see 40 T.A.C. §§ 3.601, 3.603 (West 1998), or a driver’s license. See 37 T.A.C. § 15.42 (West 1998) (requiring documentation to verify social security number upon original application). Similarly, unsubstantiated oral claims of citizenship are inadequate to establish U.S. citizenship for purposes of waiving a due process right under a criminal statute such as article 26.13(a)(4).
In the present case, there is no question that the trial court failed to give the admonishment. The majority overrules appellant’s first point of error, however, because he answered affirmatively to a question regarding his citizenship at a pre-trial hearing. The only evidence in this case of appellant’s citizenship or immigration status is his acquiescence to one question posed by his lawyer. The information appears in the record only because appellant’s lawyer desired to formally note appellant’s refusal of a plea bargain agreement and his decision to plead guilty before a jury. Appellant claims he answered affirmatively only because his lawyer prompted him to do so. This record simply does not conclusively establish that appellant is a United States citizen.
Failure to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment should be harmless only when the record conclusively shows the defendant is a United States citizen. Had the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment been given in this case, it may have influenced appellant’s decision to plead guilty. The omission of the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment is error which should not be disregarded in this case. For these reasons, I would sustain appellant’s first point of error, and reverse and remand for a new trial.