Marco Diaz v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                   COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    MARCO DIAZ,                                    §
    No. 08-12-00108-CR
    Appellant,    §
    Appeal from the
    v.                                             §
    120th District Court
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                            §
    of El Paso County, Texas
    Appellee.     §
    (TC#20110D02363)
    §
    OPINION
    Appellant Marco Diaz, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his
    guilty plea.   We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    On December 8, 2011, Appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense of indecency with
    a child pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. The trial court adhered to the State’s
    recommended sentence of eight years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
    Department of Criminal Justice. At the plea hearing, the trial court asked Appellant if he
    needed an interpreter and defense counsel, Tati Santiesteban, responded that Appellant did not.
    Appellant verbally responded in English to the questions posed to him during the remainder of
    the hearing. The trial court admonished Appellant regarding his rights to trial by jury, to
    assistance of counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and to remain silent.   Appellant
    testified that he had read and understood the plea papers bearing his signature.
    Santiesteban stated that he had explained the plea papers to Appellant and had no doubt
    that Appellant understood the admonishments, rights and consequences of entering his guilty
    plea. Appellant testified that he was satisfied with Santiesteban’s representation, that he is a
    Mexican national, and that he understood he would be deported, could be denied U.S. citizenship
    in the future, or face other immigration-related consequences by pleading guilty.         Appellant
    proceeded to enter his plea of guilty and testified that he did so freely and voluntarily.
    Appellant also testified that he understood the terms of the plea agreement that he would serve
    eight years’ confinement and would be required to register as a sex offender.       The trial court
    pronounced judgment in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.
    Less than a month later, on January 5, 2012, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his
    guilty plea.   On January 31, 2012, the trial court heard the motion at which Edward Hernandez
    represented Appellant.   Appellant argued he did not enter his guilty plea voluntarily because he
    had relied on the erroneous advice of Santiesteban, who Appellant claims rendered ineffective
    assistance. Appellant’s mother, Amelia Diaz, testified Santiesteban told her that Appellant had
    to plead guilty or he would be sentenced to twenty years’ confinement.      On cross-examination,
    Ms. Diaz admitted that Appellant’s trial counsel did not lie to her and that Appellant pleaded
    guilty to the same terms his trial counsel told her Appellant would plead to.        Ms. Diaz also
    testified that she was present at the plea hearing when Appellant responded to the trial court’s
    questions in English, and stated that Appellant speaks a little English, and reads English.
    Santiesteban testified that he told Appellant he did not have to plead guilty and had a
    right to proceed to trial.   Santiesteban stated that Appellant had been facing a maximum
    2
    sentence of ten years’ confinement, and explained that Appellant did not want to go to trial but
    wished to plead guilty in order to receive six years’ confinement. The District Attorney’s
    Office would not agree to a sentence of six years’ confinement. The State offered Appellant a
    plea agreement of eight years’ confinement, which Appellant ultimately accepted in order to
    avoid trial.   Santiesteban denied ever telling either Appellant or Appellant’s mother that
    Appellant would be sentenced to twenty years if he did not plead guilty.          Santiesteban testified
    that Appellant never told him that he wanted to go to trial or that he was willing to plead nolo
    contendre in exchange for being deported immediately without confinement.                   Santiesteban
    explained that he had represented Appellant multiple times in the past, including three or four
    additional cases involving Appellant’s pleas of guilty.             Santiesteban stated that he and
    Appellant have communicated in both English and Spanish, although usually in English. On
    the day of the plea hearing, Santiesteban asked Appellant if he wanted an interpreter, and
    Appellant responded that he did not. Santiesteban also testified that he and Appellant reviewed
    all of the plea papers, which he explained to Appellant in Spanish prior to the plea hearing.
    Appellant offered into evidence four letters he dictated in Spanish to a fellow inmate in
    the county jail, who translated and wrote them down in English.           Appellant signed and mailed
    each letter to the trial court and the court clerk certified then filed each letter in the court’s file of
    Appellant’s case. The letters suggested Appellant disagreed with his trial counsel and did not
    enter his plea voluntarily because he wanted to plead guilty or no contest in order to be deported
    immediately without serving time in prison.          The State objected that the letters constituted
    hearsay and lacked proper authentication. The trial court admitted the letters, noting that they
    went to the weight and not the truth of the matter, and observed that Appellant’s statements in
    3
    the dictated letters are not necessarily true.
    Appellant testified that he moved to the U.S. from Mexico when he was in the third grade
    and speaks and understands a little English. Appellant claimed he wanted an interpreter at the
    plea hearing but Santiesteban told him he did not need one and to answer the questions as
    Santiesteban instructed him. Appellant testified he pleaded guilty because Santiesteban told
    him he would be deported immediately if he did so, and would not have to serve the eight years’
    confinement, and informed Appellant that if he did not plead guilty, the judge would be mad at
    him and impose a twenty-year sentence.           Appellant claimed Santiesteban gave him the answers
    to the trial court’s questions at the plea hearing, and the trial court failed to notice his answers
    were directed. Appellant admitted he has pleaded guilty at least six times in the past, asserted
    that he had interpreters at each of the other pleas, and stated that his attorneys always handled the
    hearings.
    The trial court took the issue under advisement.        On February 23, 2012, the trial court
    found Appellant had knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and Santiesteban’s
    representation of Appellant was not deficient, and entered an order denying Appellant’s motion
    to withdraw his plea.    Appellant raises three issues on appeal.
    DISCUSSION
    Voluntariness of the Plea
    In two issues, Appellant challenges the voluntariness of his plea and argues the trial court
    abused its discretion when it denied his request to withdraw his plea on that basis.
    Standard of Review
    A court shall not accept a plea of guilty unless the defendant enters the plea freely and
    4
    voluntarily.    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13(b) (West 2009).             The record must
    affirmatively establish that a defendant entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily.
    Fuller v. State, 
    253 S.W.3d 220
    , 229 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008).            When a trial court properly
    admonishes a defendant before he enters a plea of guilty, the admonishments constitute a prima
    facie showing the plea was both knowing and voluntary.         Martinez v. State, 
    981 S.W.2d 195
    ,
    197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Fielding v. State, 
    266 S.W.3d 627
    , 636 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008,
    pet. ref’d).   The burden then shifts to the defendant to show his plea was entered without an
    understanding of its consequences and, because of it, he has suffered harm.          
    Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197
    .      A defendant who attests during the plea hearing that his plea is voluntary bears
    a heavy burden to prove he entered the plea involuntarily at a subsequent hearing.        
    Fielding, 266 S.W.3d at 636
    .       In determining the voluntariness of a plea we consider the record as a
    whole. 
    Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197
    .
    Before the court has pronounced the judgment or taken the case under advisement, a
    defendant may change his plea from guilty to not guilty as a matter of right without assigning
    reason.     See Jackson v. State, 
    590 S.W.2d 514
    , 515 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); DeVary v. State, 
    615 S.W.2d 739
    , 740 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981).           See also Mendez v. State, 
    138 S.W.3d 334
    , 345
    (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).       When a defendant wishes to withdraw his guilty plea after the trial
    court has pronounced judgment or taken the case under advisement, the withdrawal is within the
    sound discretion of the trial court.     
    Jackson, 590 S.W.2d at 515
    ; Hernandez v. State, 
    885 S.W.2d 597
    , 602 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no pet.).
    The trial court has broad discretion when determining the credibility of the witnesses and
    weighing the evidence before it.      See Salazar v. State, 
    38 S.W.3d 141
    , 148 (Tex.Crim.App.
    5
    2001). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court acts in an unreasonable and arbitrary
    manner, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles.    Ramirez v. State, 
    973 S.W.2d 388
    , 391 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.).      A trial court does not abuse its discretion when
    its decision falls within the zone of reasonable disagreement.   Hernandez v. State, 
    390 S.W.3d 310
    , 324 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012), cert. denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 823
    , 
    187 L. Ed. 2d 685
    (2013).
    Interpreter
    In Issue One, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying his request to withdraw his
    plea because he could not have entered the plea voluntarily without an interpreter present at the
    plea hearing.   We disagree.     The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a
    criminal defendant the right to have the trial proceedings translated into a language he
    understands.    Garcia v. State, 
    149 S.W.3d 135
    , 140 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). This right may be
    waived. 
    Id. at 143.
        The fact that a defendant is more fluent in another language does not
    necessitate a translator if the defendant demonstrates an ability to understand and speak English.
    See Linton v. State, 
    275 S.W.3d 493
    , 502 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009); Flores v. State, 
    299 S.W.3d 843
    , 855 n.3 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. ref’d).        However, if a trial court is aware the
    defendant does not speak or understand English, an interpreter must be provided to translate the
    proceedings for the defendant.    Baltierra v. State, 
    586 S.W.2d 553
    , 559 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979);
    
    Garcia, 149 S.W.3d at 143
    .
    In support of Issue One, Appellant asserts he demonstrated he was a Spanish speaker by
    his use of an interpreter at the hearing on his motion to withdraw. Appellant complains that it
    was Santiesteban who answered the trial court and stated Appellant did not need a translator.
    Appellant notes that he sent letters to the court which were transcribed into English by someone
    6
    else after he dictated his statements in Spanish.
    The State directs us to numerous facts in the plea record and evidence from the motion
    hearing indicating that Appellant demonstrated an ability to understand and speak English,
    understood the plea papers, and understood the proceedings at the plea hearing, arguing that
    Appellant’s plea was voluntarily entered.
    Although the evidence regarding Appellant’s translation needs and the plea discussion
    between Appellant and Santiesteban are in conflict, it was within the trial court’s role as fact
    finder to ascertain the credibility and weight of each witness’s testimony.       See 
    Salazar, 38 S.W.3d at 148
    .    An appellant bears a heavy burden to overcome the presumption that he entered
    his plea voluntarily and understood the plea hearing proceedings.   
    Fielding, 266 S.W.3d at 636
    .
    A trial court is not required to appoint an interpreter over a defendant’s assertion he does
    not require one, unless the trial court knows the defendant does not speak or understand English.
    
    Garcia, 149 S.W.3d at 143
    ; 
    Baltierra, 586 S.W.2d at 559
    . Here, Appellant asserted through
    Santiesteban that he did not require an interpreter, then, proceeded to respond appropriately to
    the trial court’s questions during the remainder of the hearing.     Although Appellant may be
    more fluent in Spanish than English, the record indicates he demonstrated an ability to
    understand and speak English at the plea hearing which was corroborated by the testimony of
    Santiesteban and Appellant’s mother at the motions hearing.    
    Linton, 275 S.W.3d at 502
    .
    We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Appellant
    knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to confrontation and cross-examination when he
    pleaded guilty.   See 
    Jackson, 590 S.W.2d at 515
    . Because the trial court did not err, Issue One
    is overruled.
    7
    Erroneous Advice of Trial Counsel
    In Issue Two, Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining his plea was entered
    voluntarily when he pleaded guilty because his trial counsel told him to enter the plea.       In
    support of this contention Appellant directs us to the pre-plea letter he sent the trial court in
    which he claims he would like to plead no contest and receive probation and be immediately
    deported and found the State’s plea offer to serve jail time unacceptable.   At the hearing on his
    motion to withdraw, Appellant testified he only pleaded guilty because Santiesteban told him to
    and he mistakenly believed he would be deported immediately without having to serve his
    confinement sentence.     Appellant then cites two cases which contradict his position because
    both the defendants’ pleas were deemed voluntary despite alleged erroneous advice of trial
    counsel.    See Ex parte Tomlinson, 
    295 S.W.3d 412
    , 419 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no
    pet.) (allegation defendant was advised to lie about guilt in order to obtain plea bargain was
    insufficient to render the plea involuntary because defendant was aware of consequences of plea
    and failed to show he would have not pleaded guilty but for the erroneous advice); see also
    Anderson v. State, 
    746 N.W.2d 901
    , 908 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (erroneous advice to plead guilty
    does not prejudice a defendant whose desired outcome was to plead guilty).      Appellant asserts
    the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw in spite of established case law to the
    contrary.
    The State responds by noting that Appellant fails to elaborate and explain how
    Santiesteban told him to plead guilty or why that made his plea involuntary.          At the plea
    hearing, Appellant was properly admonished, and he testified he was entering his guilty plea
    freely and voluntarily.    At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, Santiesteban disputed
    8
    Appellant’s assertion that he had provided any erroneous advice and testified that Appellant
    never expressed a desire to forego a guilty plea and proceed to trial.
    The trial court’s admonishment of Appellant at the plea hearing creates a prima facie
    showing that his plea was entered into voluntarily.    
    Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197
    ; 
    Fielding, 266 S.W.3d at 636
    . Appellant’s evidence in support of his assertion that his plea was involuntarily
    made based on erroneous advice of counsel does not meet the heavy burden he bears to show he
    did not understand the consequences of the plea.      
    Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197
    ; 
    Fielding, 266 S.W.3d at 636
    .    In fact, the case he cites to, Ex parte Tomlinson, supports our determination that
    Appellant understood the consequences of his plea, and even if his trial counsel told him to plead
    guilty, he was not prejudiced because he still wished to plead either guilty or no contest in order
    to avoid trial as referenced both in his letter to the court and during his testimony at the motion to
    withdraw plea hearing.      Ex parte 
    Tomlinson, 295 S.W.3d at 419
    .         Because the trial court did
    not abuse its discretion by determining Appellant’s plea was entered voluntarily and denying
    Appellant’s request to withdraw his plea, Issue Two is overruled.        
    Jackson, 590 S.W.2d at 515
    .
    Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    In Issue Three, Appellant asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
    trial counsel failed to secure an interpreter at the plea hearing and as a result, his plea was not
    voluntary.   We disagree.
    Standard of Review
    A guilty plea is involuntary if made as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.      Ex
    parte Moussazadeh, 
    361 S.W.3d 684
    , 689 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (habeas corpus applicant was
    entitled to relief when he received ineffective assistance of counsel in entering his guilty plea).
    9
    When claiming his plea is involuntary based on ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must
    establish that: (1) defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
    reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s ineffectiveness, the
    result of the proceeding would have been different.       Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    ,
    687–88, 694, 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 
    80 L. Ed. 2d 674
    (1984); Ex parte 
    Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 691
    .
    The different result required in the context of an involuntary plea would be choosing not to plead
    guilty in order to proceed to trial.   Ex parte 
    Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 691
    .
    The claimant bears the burden of establishing both prongs of the Strickland test by a
    preponderance of the evidence.         Ex parte Martinez, 
    330 S.W.3d 891
    , 901 (Tex.Crim.App.
    2011).     Failure to meet the burden for either prong defeats the ineffectiveness claim.
    
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697
    .     Our review of the actions taken by counsel is highly deferential
    and carries a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was not deficient.     
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689
    ; see Ex parte 
    Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 691
    .        To prevail, a defendant must overcome
    the presumption that, under the circumstances, counsel’s conduct fell within an objective
    standard of reasonable professional norms. See 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689
    ; Ex parte
    
    Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 691
    .
    Analysis
    Appellant claims his trial counsel was deficient by failing to determine that Appellant
    could not read the plea papers in English or that he needed an interpreter at the plea hearing to
    fully comprehend the consequences of his guilty plea. He contends his use of an interpreter at
    the hearing on the motion to withdraw established that he was a Spanish speaker, and that
    Santiesteban, rather than Appellant, answered at the plea hearing that he did not need an
    10
    interpreter.   Furthermore, Appellant again relies on the letters he sent to the trial court from jail
    which were written in English by another person after Appellant dictated the words in Spanish.
    The State again notes that Santiesteban testified he communicated with Appellant
    multiple times during this and past representations in both English and Spanish, although usually
    in English and Appellant told Santiesteban he did not need an interpreter at the plea hearing and
    Appellant communicated in English with the trial court during the plea hearing, answering all of
    the questions directed to him appropriately.
    Although conflicting testimony exists regarding Appellant’s English language ability,
    Appellant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Santiesteban acted
    unreasonably by not requesting an interpreter at the plea hearing or not determining that
    Appellant could not read English.     See Ex parte 
    Martinez, 330 S.W.3d at 901
    ; see also Ex parte
    
    Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 691
    .        Appellant’s failure to affirmatively establish trial counsel’s
    deficient performance defeats his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and we need not
    address the reasonable probability of a different outcome.     
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697
    ; Ex parte
    
    Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 691
    .        Issue Three is overruled.
    CONCLUSION
    The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
    GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice
    July 11, 2014
    Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
    (Do Not Publish)
    11