Court Opinion

ID: 9682158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:06:16.690636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.800753
License: Public Domain

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, but concur with respect to the disposition of point of error number one.
As part of his point of error number one, appellant avers the trial court erred in failing to admonish appellant regarding the possible deportation consequences of a guilty plea. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 26.13(a) provides that prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of:
(4) the fact that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States of America, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for the *944offense charged may result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law.
The record shows that appellant was bom on November 19, 1962 in Houston, Texas. He has lived his entire life in Texas except for a brief period of time he spent in the Army. It is thus beyond dispute that appellant is a United States citizen and cannot be deported for any reason unless he renounces his citizenship.
In Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), we held that failure to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment was reversible error, even without a showing of harm. The record in Morales was completely silent as to appellant’s citizenship, however, so it is possible to distinguish Morales from the present case where there is no question that appellant is a United States citizen. It is suggested, in Judge Meyers’ concurring opinion in Morales, that in writing article 26.13(a)(4), the Legislature did not intend to require defendants pleading guilty or nolo contendere to litigate the issue of their citizenship at trial so that trial judges could determine whether the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment had to be given. Therefore, the Legislature mandated that all such defendants receive the admonishment. Morales, at 755. This interpretation of possible legislative intent is logical, and the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment must be given in every case where the record is silent as to the defendant’s citizenship, as well as, of course, where the defendant is not a U.S. citizen.
Morales, I submit, does not apply to instances, such as the present case, where the record clearly shows the defendant is a United States citizen. As deportation or other immigration consequences are a legal impossibility with respect to appellant — a U.S. citizen — as a result of his guilty plea, article 26.13(a)(4) is inapplicable.
Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) provides a framework for statutory analysis. In Boykin, we held that when we interpret a statute, we seek to effectuate the intent of the Legislature which enacted the legislation. “When attempting to discern this collective legislative intent or purpose, we necessarily focus our attention on the literal text of the statute in question and attempt to discern the fair, objective meaning of that text at the time of its enactment.” Boykin, at 785.
There is, of course, a legitimate exception to this plain meaning rule: where application of a statute’s plain language would lead to absurd consequences that the Legislature could not possibly have intended we should not apply the language literally. When used in the proper manner, this narrow exception to the plain meaning rule does not intrude on the lawmaking powers of the legislative branch, but rather demonstrates respect for that branch, which we assume would not act in an absurd way.
Boykin, at 785.
The Legislature, in writing article 26.13(a)(4), expressed its intent that a defendant, before entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, be admonished as to the possible immigration consequences of such a plea, consequences applicable only if the defendant is not a U.S. citizen. Our decision in Morales correctly gave due deference to the Legislature’s intent by holding it is reversible error to fail to give the admonishment where the record is silent as to defendant’s citizenship status.
It would be an absurd result — a result the Legislature could not possibly have intended — to allow a defendant’s conviction on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to be reversed on appeal for failure to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment where the record conclusively shows defendant is a U.S. citizen and thus the admonishment is legally inapplicable to him. Accordingly, I would hold that it was not error for the trial court to fail to give appellant the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment because — as a U.S. citizen as demonstrated by the record — the admonishment is legally inapplicable to him.
With these comments, I join the opinion of the Court, but concur with respect to its disposition of point of error number one.