Arreguin, Francisco Javier ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-91,332-01
EX PARTE FRANCISCO JAVIER ARREGUIN, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 1038660-B IN THE 178TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
ORDER
Applicant was convicted of a state jail felony possession of a controlled substance, namely
cocaine, weighing less than one gram and sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment. Applicant did not
appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of
conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 11.07.
Applicant raises three grounds; actual innocence, ineffective assistance due to erroneous
immigration advice resulting in an involuntary plea , and a claim that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S.
356 (2010) should apply retroactively in Texas in light of the criminal procedures in place. The trial
court has determined that trial counsel has acted deficiently, that Applicant can avail himself of the
2
Padilla holdings which outline the immigration admonishments required for a guilty plea, and that
Applicant has demonstrated that his conviction was improperly obtained.
However, based on the Court’s review of the record, this Court finds that Applicant has
presented no newly discovered evidence to support his claim of actual innocence and has failed to
show that his trial counsel acted deficiently. Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 545 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Supreme Court and this Court have
rejected arguments that Padilla is retroactive. Chaidez v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2012); Ex parte De
Los Reyes, 392 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Applicant’s conviction occurred four years
before the Padilla holding, so it does not apply. Further, Applicant waited over fourteen years before
presenting this claim to the trial court and there is nothing in the record to explain or excuse that
delay. This Court finds that Applicant is barred from obtaining relief under the doctrine of laches.
Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We deny relief.
Delivered: August 19, 2020
Do not publish