Voluntary Deportation as a Condition of Probation?

On May 12, 2004, when Maricela Rodriguez Gutierrez was placed on community supervision, she agreed her community supervision status would subject her to twenty-nine supervisory conditions.  Fifteen of those conditions were general conditions, seven were financial, two were drug-related, two were education-related, and three were immigration-related.

One of the immigration-related requirements of her community supervision (i.e. probation) was that she obtain legal immigration status by the end of twelve months, and if she did not obtain legal status, to leave the country and reside in a location where she does have a legally authorized status.  As you can imagine, she failed to do this (if she had satisfied the condition, then I probably wouldn't be writing about it).  Accordingly, the trial court revoked the community supervision. 

Appellant now argues that the term requiring that she leave the United States was void and, thus, cannot support her revocation.  The 6th District Court of Appeals (Texarkana) agreed.  The Court held that upon revocation of community supervision, the violated term—that the defendant leave the U.S.—was void and the revocation could not stand.  The Court explained that immigration matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government therefore a condition of state community supervision requiring a defendant to leave the country violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

See the Court's full opinion in Gutierrez v. State HERE.

A Waste of the Appellate Court's Time, Perhaps?

Yesterday, the 7th District Court of Appeals (Amarillo) reported Lawrence v. Texas (yes, a different Lawrence), wherein the appellant, who had been convicted in accordance with his pleas, complained on appeal that the trial judge failed to admonish him of the possibility of deportation if he was not a United States citizen. The problem is...He is a citizen! Born in Texas!

Okay, it is true that under article 26.13(a)(4) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court must make such an admonishment and that it was technically error for him omit a required warning. But come on! This is the kind of stuff that make lawyers look bad.

Having known Justice Quinn in law school, I can only imagine what he thought of this ridiculous argument. I'm sure his patience was thin when counsel presented this issue during oral argument. In his opinion, which is quite flip (not even 4 pages), Justice Quinn spends only one paragraph dismissing the claim:

Regarding the failure to admonish about deportation, the omission is harmless if the record shows that the defendant is a United States citizen and, therefore, not subject to deportation. VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). That is the situation here. According to a pen packet admitted into evidence, appellant was born in Texas. Since Texas remains part of the United States, appellant was born a United States citizen and is not subject to deportation. Thus, this particular error was harmless.

Why did the Court designate that such an opinion be published? Could it be so that no other creative appellate defense counsel try the same argument and other justices could be saved from writing opinions on such frivolous matter? Perhaps.