Ex Parte: Victoria Ifeanyi Anwuzia ( 2022 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 11, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-01083-CR
No. 05-21-01084-CR
EX PARTE VICTORIA IFEANYI ANWUZIA
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. CR16-0886, CR16-0887
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Victoria Ifeanyi Anwuzia appeals the trial court’s order denying relief on her
post-conviction applications for writ of habeas corpus. In a single issue, appellant
argues the trial court erred by declining to review her first and third claims and
holding that review was barred because the claims could have been raised on direct
appeal. We affirm.
A jury found appellant guilty of assault causing bodily injury and driving
while intoxicated. Anwuzia v. State, No. 05-21-00129-CR, 2022 WL 1448134, at *1
(Tex. App.—Dallas May 9, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). The court assessed punishment at 90 days and 60 days respectively in
the Rockwall County Jail, probated for twenty-four months. Id. The trial court also
assessed a fine of $1000 in each case. Id. Appellant filed an appeal of these
convictions but did not file a brief or the reporter’s record. This Court affirmed the
trial court's judgments. Anwuzia v. State, No. 05-17-01469-CR, 2018 WL 2949442,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). The State later filed motions to revoke community supervision in both
cases. Anwuzia, 2022 WL 1448134, at *1. After a hearing, the trial court granted the
motions, rendered judgments revoking appellant’s community supervision, and
sentenced her to 90 days and 60 days in jail respectively. Id.Appellant filed an application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus
under article 11.072 of the code of criminal procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 11.072. She asserted three grounds for relief: (1) she was erroneously allowed to
represent herself at trial without proper admonishments required by Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and her waiver of counsel cannot be held to be
voluntary; (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain her conviction for
assault; and (3) her conviction should be vacated because there was insufficient
probable cause to detain her vehicle. The trial court denied her requested relief.
Standard of Review
An applicant for post-conviction habeas corpus relief bears the burden of
proving their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d
35, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). In reviewing the trial court’s order, we view the facts
–2–
in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, and we uphold the ruling absent
an abuse of discretion. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
When the underlying conviction results in community supervision, an ensuing
post-conviction writ must be brought pursuant to article 11.072 of the code of
criminal procedure, and the trial judge is the sole fact-finder. Torres, 483 S.W.3d at
42.
When reviewing the trial court’s order denying habeas corpus relief, “we
afford almost total deference to a trial court’s factual findings when they are
supported by the record, especially when those findings are based upon credibility
and demeanor.” Id. We defer to the trial court’s ruling on mixed questions of law
and fact, if the resolution of the ultimate question turns on an evaluation of credibility
and demeanor. Ex parte Weinstein, 421 S.W.3d 656, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
If, however, the trial court’s determinations are questions of law, or else are mixed
questions of law and fact that do not turn on an evaluation of witnesses’ credibility
and demeanor, then we owe no deference to the trial court’s determinations and
review them de novo. State v. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d 587, 596 (Tex. Crim. App.
2016).
When the trial court determines from the face of the application and attached
documents that the applicant is manifestly entitled to no relief, the court should deny
the application as frivolous. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.072, § 7(a). Otherwise,
–3–
the court should enter a written order including findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Id.
Analysis
The State contends that appellant’s claims in her habeas applications could
have been raised on direct appeal from her convictions. We agree.
An application may not be filed under article 11.072 if the applicant could
obtain the requested relief by means of an appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 11.072, § 3(a); Ex parte Cruzata, 220 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007);
Ex parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“Great Writ should
not be used” to obtain relief that should have been obtained on appeal). The writ of
habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only when there is no
other adequate remedy at law. Cruzata, 22 S.W.3d at 520.
Appellant recognizes that she may not obtain relief by habeas if she could
have obtained that relief by means of an appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 11.072, § 3(a). She argues, however, that this rule does not apply to
constitutional claims such as her claims regarding the lack of admonishments about
self-representation and the lack of probable cause to detain her vehicle. This is
incorrect. “Even a constitutional claim is forfeited if the applicant had the
opportunity to raise the issue on appeal.” Townsend, 137 S.W.3d at 81. Nothing
prevented appellant from raising these contentions on direct appeal and she does not
argue otherwise. See Cruzata, 220 S.W.3d at 520. Because appellant could have
–4–
obtained the requested relief by means of a direct appeal, she is not entitled to assert
those claims by way of habeas corpus. Id.; see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.
11.072, § 3(a).
We conclude the trial court did not err by denying appellant’s applications for
a writ of habeas corpus. We overrule appellant’s sole issue on appeal.
Conclusion
Because appellant’s claims could have been presented on direct appeal, they
are not cognizable in a post-conviction application for habeas corpus. The trial court
did not err by denying the applications as frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s orders.
/Erin A. Nowell//
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
211083f.u05
211084f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE VICTORIA IFEANYI On Appeal from the County Court at
ANWUZIA Law No. 1, Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR16-0886.
No. 05-21-01083-CR Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Partida-Kipness and
Pedersen, III participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 11th day of August, 2022.
–6–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE VICTORIA IFEANYI On Appeal from the County Court at
ANWUZIA Law No. 1, Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR16-0887.
No. 05-21-01084-CR Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Partida-Kipness and
Pedersen, III participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 11th day of August, 2022.
–7–