In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-20-00245-CR EX PARTE MUKHTAR OWAIS, APPELLANT On Appeal from the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas1 Trial Court No. 12-05308-CRF-361, Honorable Steven Lee Smith, Presiding June 16, 2021 OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Mukhtar Owais, appeals the habeas court’s denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant contends that his rejection of a plea bargain offer made by the State was the result of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel who failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his conviction. We affirm the order of the habeas court. 1 Originally appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. Factual and Procedural Background Around 2:00 a.m. on July 21, 2012, officers with the Texas A&M University Police Department observed a vehicle being driven by appellant on the sidewalk adjacent to the street. As the vehicle passed, one of the officers yelled for the driver to stop. When the driver failed to stop, the officer ran after the vehicle. When the officer was unable to get appellant to stop, he radioed for help. Another officer in a patrol car pulled appellant over. During the resulting detention, the officer asked appellant why he ran from the earlier officer. Appellant stated that he was scared and nervous because he knew he was not supposed to be driving on the sidewalk. After field sobriety tests were administered, it was determined that appellant was not intoxicated. Appellant was subsequently charged with the third-degree offense of evading arrest in a motor vehicle.2 Appellant retained attorney Craig Greaves to represent him in this matter. Greaves had previously represented appellant in relation to misdemeanor theft, misdemeanor evading arrest, and disorderly conduct charges and was aware that appellant was not a United States citizen. Greaves’s practice area is solely devoted to criminal law. Consequently, Greaves advised appellant that Greaves was not an immigration attorney and to discuss the potential immigration consequences of his pending criminal charges with an immigration attorney who was assisting appellant and his family in obtaining citizenship. As to the merits of the case, Greaves advised appellant that it was a “triable” case in that there were issues regarding whether appellant was aware that police officers were trying to stop him. Before trial, the State made a plea 2 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West 2016). 2 bargain offer of straight probation on the reduced charge of misdemeanor evading arrest. Greaves relayed the offer to appellant and advised him to take it. Appellant countered seeking deferred adjudication on the misdemeanor. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals