COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00472-CR
EX PARTE
CARL ESREY
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Appellant Carl Esrey filed his application for writ of habeas corpus in the
district court challenging the validity of his 1990 misdemeanor conviction for
attempted burglary of a vehicle with intent to commit theft. He argued that his
conviction should be set aside as involuntary because the trial court had not
provided the admonitions required by article 26.13 of the code of criminal
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
procedure. 2 The trial court denied Appellant’s requested relief on the ground of
laches.
As this court recently explained, “We review the trial court’s decision to
deny habeas corpus relief for an abuse of discretion. We will uphold the trial
court’s judgment as long as it is correct on any theory of law applicable to the
case.” 3
The State pointed out in its response to Appellant’s brief in support of his
application for habeas relief that the law is well-established that the requirement
of article 26.13 admonitions does not apply in misdemeanor cases. 4 Further, as
the trial court found, the 1990 judgment of conviction indicates that the convicting
court “duly admonished [Appellant] as to the consequences of [his guilty] plea,
including the range of punishment attached to the offense and the fact that any
recommendation of the prosecuting attorney [would] not [be] binding on the court,
yet [Appellant] persist[ed] in entering such plea.” Appellant has offered no
evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity of that judgment. 5 Because
article 26.13 does not apply to misdemeanor cases and Appellant has not
2
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2013).
3
Ex parte Evans, 410 S.W.3d 481, 484 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no
pet.) (citations omitted).
4
State v. Guerrero, 400 S.W.3d 576, 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
5
See id. at 584–85.
2
otherwise rebutted the presumption that his plea was voluntary, we affirm the trial
court’s order denying habeas relief.
/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 17, 2014
3