Trevino v. Lumpkin ( 2022 )

Case: 20-50535 Document: 00516372500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 27, 2022
No. 20-50535 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Sergio Trevino,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CV-532
Before Higginbotham, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Sergio Trevino, a Texas inmate, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition. The district court denied relief, and we granted a certificate
of appealability on whether his guilty plea was made knowingly and
voluntarily and whether his counsel was ineffective for misadvising him
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50535 Document: 00516372500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 20-50535
regarding his potential sentence. Having considered the arguments under
the relevant standard of review, we AFFIRM.
I. Background
Trevino was originally indicted on charges of continuous sexual abuse
of a child, an offense with a maximum sentence of ninety-nine years of
imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.02. After negotiations with
the State, Trevino pleaded guilty to lesser charges, including two counts of
indecency with a child and three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a
child. 1 He was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment on the indecency
counts and seventy years of imprisonment on the aggravated sexual assault
counts, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Trevino filed a state habeas application challenging his sentence and
underlying conviction. Per Trevino, he accepted the plea agreement only
because his trial counsel, Cathy Compton, advised him that the plea made
him eligible to be placed on deferred adjudication probation. But that
sentence was not possible under the terms of the plea agreement, which
clearly stated that: (1) the indecency with a child counts were eligible for
deferred adjudication probation; (2) the aggravated sexual assault counts
were not eligible; and (3) all counts were to run concurrently. Trevino argued
that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and his counsel was
ineffective in advising him on the consequences of his plea agreement.
Trevino’s state habeas proceedings were unsuccessful. The trial
court entered written findings of fact concluding that Trevino had been
properly advised, and his plea was accordingly knowingly and voluntarily
1
The former carried punishment ranges of two to twenty years of imprisonment,
and the latter carried ranges of five years of imprisonment to life. Tex. Penal Code
§§ 12.32, 12.33, 21.11, 22.021.
2
Case: 20-50535 Document: 00516372500 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 20-50535
entered. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, denying review
without a written order.
Trevino then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court
denied relief, and this appeal followed. Concluding that jurists of reason
could debate Trevino’s claims, we granted a certificate of appealability on
two issues: (1) whether Trevino’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and
(2) whether his trial counsel was ineffective regarding the entry of his guilty
plea.
II. Standard of Review
“When a state court denies a habeas application without a written
order—as is the case here—that decision is an adjudication on the merits
subject to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),” the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Anaya v. Lumpkin, 976 F.3d 545,
550 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2703 (2021). On a district court’s
denial of a § 2254 application, we review findings of fact for clear error and
conclusions of law de novo, “applying the same standard of review to the
state court’s decision as the district court.” Id. (quotation omitted).
To obtain habeas relief under the AEDPA, Trevino must establish
that the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in
the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1), (2). The AEDPA
sets forth a highly deferential standard for evaluating state court rulings and
demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt. Charles
v. Stephens, 736 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2013).
3
Case: 20-50535 Document: 00516372500 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 20-50535
III. Discussion
We first assess Trevino’s claim that his guilty plea was not knowing
and voluntary. Under a longstanding rule, if a guilty plea is not “voluntary
and knowing, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is therefore
void.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 n.5 (1969). To make a knowing
and voluntary plea, a defendant must know the “direct consequences of the
plea,” Duke v. Cockrell, 292 F.3d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)
(quotation omitted), including the permissible range of sentences, Boykin,
395 U.S. at 244 n.7. A defendant may therefore challenge a plea if he was not
properly advised and did not understand the consequences. See Burdick v.
Quarterman, 504 F.3d 545, 547 (5th Cir. 2007). 2 That said, a mere
misunderstanding of a potential sentence does not invalidate a guilty plea.
See Smith v. McCotter, 786 F.2d 697, 701 (5th Cir. 1986).
The record reflects that Trevino had an understanding of the plea and
its consequences including the maximum sentences for the charges to which
he was pleading guilty. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244; United States v. Hernandez,
234 F.3d 252, 255–56 (5th Cir. 2000). While we recognize Trevino’s
argument that he had some confusion regarding his eligibility for deferred
adjudication probation may have some support in the record, we are bound by
the AEDPA’s directives and must give substantial deference to the state
court’s determinations. See Charles, 736 F.3d at 387. Trevino simply has not
done enough to overcome that high bar, and we therefore conclude the
district court did not err in denying relief. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.
86, 101 (2011).
2
To the extent Trevino claims the court failed to advise him of the any of the
information required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, he would need to show that
that absent this failure, he would not have pleaded guilty which, as discussed below, he does
not show. United States v. Dominguez-Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 84–85 (2004).
4
Case: 20-50535 Document: 00516372500 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 20-50535
We now turn to Trevino’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
This claim is governed by the two-part test established in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which requires proof (1) “that counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2)
“that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. at 687, 688.
We have described our review of claims in this context as “doubly
deferential” because we must give deference both to counsel’s decisions in
advising her client and the state court’s conclusions as to the effectiveness of
that advice. Anaya, 976 F.3d at 551. Thus, we “give[] both the state court
and [Compton] the benefit of the doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Even assuming arguendo that Trevino’s claims about his counsel’s
advice could satisfy the first Strickland prong, his claim nevertheless fails at
the prejudice inquiry. In this context, Trevino was required to prove that he
would not have pleaded guilty but for the error. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52,
57 (1985); Armstead v. Scott, 37 F.3d 202, 206 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A petitioner
must establish that but for his counsel’s alleged erroneous advice, he would
not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted upon going to trial.”).
Trevino cannot make such a showing. According to his counsel,
Trevino acknowledged that the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming and
admitted that he did not wish to put the victim through the ordeal of a jury
trial.3 Additionally, Trevino faced a hefty sentence if the State proceeded to
trial on the original indictment: a statutory minimum sentence of twenty-five
years, a maximum sentence of ninety-nine years, and no possibility of parole.
See Tex. Penal Code § 21.02(h). On these facts and given the double
deference owed under Strickland and the AEDPA, we cannot say that he
3
Potential evidence at the trial would have included an audio recording
documenting a sexual encounter between Trevino and the victim, recorded phone calls,
and testimony from the victim and her mother.
5
Case: 20-50535 Document: 00516372500 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/27/2022
No. 20-50535
would not have pleaded guilty. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
court did not err in denying relief. 4 See Richter, 562 U.S. at 101.
AFFIRMED.
4
The State separately argues that Trevino’s claim was untimely. Because we
affirm on other grounds, we do not reach the State’s argument.
6