X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Eugene Robert Van Nortrick appeals two convictions for aggravated sexual assault. Because the record does not show either that appellant was admonished about the deportation consequences of his plea or that he is a U.S. citizen, the court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion, did not agree with counsel’s determination that these appeals are wholly frivolous. The court of appeals granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw, abated the appeals and remanded them to the trial court. DISSENT:Kerry P. Fitzgerald, J. “While the State presented several compelling (arguments . . . I focus on the most significant. I would conclude the trial court’s error in failing to admonish appellant about the possibility of deportation, exclusion from admission to this country, and denial of naturalization as required by article 26.13(a)(4) does not constitute reversible error in these cases. Specifically, appellant’s prior conviction for an”aggravated felony’ involving moral turpitude-as those terms are understood by the federal immigration statutes-renders the error harmless. I, therefore, dissent. Harmless Error Standard Rule 44.2(b) provides,”Any other [i.e., non-constitutional] error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.’ Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b). The”substantial right’ protected by article 26.13(a)(4) is the right to be informed of the potential for deportation, exclusion from admission to the country, and denial of naturalization as a result of a conviction for the charged offense. As stated in Anderson v. State, 182 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006),”[t]he question for us to decide in applying Rule 44.2(b) to the failure to give an admonition is, considering the record as a whole, do we have a fair assurance that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty would not have changed had the court admonished him?’ Id. at 919. I would hold that if the record shows appellant’s convictions of the charged offenses can have no effect upon his potential for deportation, exclusion from admission to the country, and denial of naturalization, then we have”a fair assurance that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty would not have changed had the court admonished him” and that the error is not reversible.’”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.