# Arista

> District Court, N.D. Texas · March 10, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11366642

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephen Arista v. Director, TDCJ-CID
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Texas
- **Decided:** March 10, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11366642

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STEPHEN ARISTA, §
TDCJ No. 02397313, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
§
V. § No. 3:24-cv-02034-G-BN
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Through a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
[Dkt. No. 3], Petitioner Stephen Arista, a Texas state prisoner, challenges his 2022
Hunt County conviction and plea bargain agreement for felony assault of a family or
household member by impeding breath or circulation. See State v. Arista, No.
33954CR, (354th Jud. Dist. Ct., Hunt Cnty., 2022).
The Court has reviewed the petition, the state court record, and the parties’
submissions. The relevant procedural history is set out below.
On February 11, 2022, the 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas
placed Arista on six years of deferred adjudication community supervision after he
pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Dkt. No. 12-1 at 8. Less than one month
later, the State moved to revoke Arista’s community supervision based on violations
that occurred on February 11, 13, and 14, 2022. Dkt. No. 12-1 at 48.
At a hearing on May 4, 2022, Arista pleaded true to the alleged violations. Dkt.
No. 12-1 at 61. The trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him
guilty, and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. See id.; see also 12-7 at 16-
18. Although Arista appealed, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the

conviction on June 20, 2023. Dkt. No. 12-11 (Arista v. State, No. 05-22-00540-CR,
2023 WL 4072117 (Tex. App.—Dallas, June 20, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Arista did
not file a petition for discretionary review.
On September 7, 2023, Arista filed a state habeas application, which the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals denied without written order on December 6, 2023. Dkt.
No. 12-17. Arista’s federal petition (filed August 8, 2024) raises three grounds for
relief: (1) The State allegedly breached the plea agreement by imposing a no-contact

condition during community supervision; (2) The probation revocation proceedings
allegedly violated due process; and (3) Arista’s guilty plea was involuntary because
counsel gave improper legal advice. Dkt. No. 3 at 5-9.
For the reasons explained below, Arista has not demonstrated that the State’s
adjudication of his claims was contrary to or involved unreasonable application of
established federal law, nor that it was based on an unreasonable determination of

the facts, and the Court should deny federal habeas relief.
Legal Standard
“Federal habeas features an intricate procedural blend of statutory and
caselaw authority.” Adekeye v. Davis, 938 F.3d 678, 682 (5th Cir. 2019). In the district
court, this process begins with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (AEDPA), under which “state prisoners face strict procedural requirements and
a high standard of review.” Adekeye, 938 F.3d at 682 (citation omitted). Under the
AEDPA, a state prisoner may not obtain federal habeas relief
with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State
court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
This standard “restricts the power of federal courts to grant writs of habeas
corpus” and ensures that “state courts play the leading role in assessing challenges
to state sentences based on federal law.” Shinn v. Kayer, 592 U.S. 111, 124 (2020). A
state court decision is “contrary” to clearly established federal law only if “it relies on
legal rules that directly conflict with prior holdings of the Supreme Court or if it
reaches a different conclusion than the Supreme Court on materially
indistinguishable facts.” Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d 708, 713 (5th Cir. 2004); see also
Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1, 2 (2014) (per curiam) (“We have emphasized, time and
time again, that the [AEDPA] prohibits the federal courts of appeals from relying on
their own precedent to conclude that a particular constitutional principle is ‘clearly
established.’” (citation omitted)). A decision involves an “unreasonable application” of

federal law when the state court “identifies the correct governing principle” but
“unreasonably applies that principle to the facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,
412-13 (2000).
The question is not whether the state court was incorrect, but whether its
decision was “so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and
comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). “If this standard is difficult to meet,
that is because it was meant to be.” Id. at 102. Federal courts must “determine what
arguments or theories supported ... or could have supported the state court’s decision”
and then ask whether fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments are
inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Id.
Under this highly deferential standard, a petitioner must do more than show
the state court’s factual or legal conclusions were incorrect, he must show that they

were “objectively unreasonable.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10.
As the Supreme Court has explained, “a state-court factual determination is
not unreasonable merely because the federal habeas court would have reached a
different conclusion in the first instance” and that federal habeas relief is precluded
even where the state court’s factual determination is debatable. Wood v. Allen, 558
U.S. 290, 301, 303 (2010). State court factual findings are “presumed to be correct”

unless the petitioner can rebut this presumption by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Id. at 293.
This presumption applies not only to explicit findings of fact but also “to those
unarticulated findings which are necessary to the state court’s conclusions of mixed
law and fact.” Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 948 n.11 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Ford
v. Davis, 910 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 2018) (“As long as there is ‘some indication of
the legal basis for the state court’s denial of relief,’ the district court may infer the
state court’s factual findings even if they were not expressly made.” (footnotes
omitted)).

Analysis
Arista’s petition fails for multiple independent reasons. First, to the extent he
challenges the validity of his guilty plea and the deferred-adjudication proceedings
(Grounds One and Three), those claims are barred by the one-year statute of
limitations. Although Ground Two concerns the later revocation of community
supervision rather than the deferred adjudication judgment, none of the claims raised
in the federal petition were fairly presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

and are therefore unexhausted and procedurally defaulted.
I. Arista’s Claims Challenging the Deferred-Adjudication
Proceedings (Grounds One and Three) Are Time-Barred
AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations on applications for federal
habeas relief filed by state prisoners. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations
period generally runs from “the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Id.
§ 2244(d)(1)(A).
In Texas, an order placing a defendant on deferred adjudication community
supervision constitutes a final judgment for AEDPA limitations purposes. See

Caldwell v. Dretke, 429 F.3d 521, 530 (5th Cir. 2005); Tharpe v. Thaler, 628 F.3d 719,
724 (5th Cir. 2010). Claims challenging the validity of the original plea or the
deferred-adjudication order, such as Grounds One and Three, must be raised within
one year of that judgment becoming final. Id.
The state court placed Arista on deferred adjudication community supervision
on February 11, 2022. Dkt. No. 12-1 at 22. Because Arista did not appeal, the

deferred-adjudication judgment became final thirty days later when the time for
filing a notice of appeal expired. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Thus, the AEDPA
limitations period began on March 14, 2022, and, absent tolling, expired one year
later on March 14, 2023.
A. Statutory Tolling Does not Apply
Statutory tolling under AEDPA applies only while “a properly filed application
for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). A state habeas application is
“pending” from the date it is filed through the date it is resolved. See Windland v.
Quarterman, 578 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2009). Critically, a state habeas application
filed after the federal limitations period has already expired neither restarts nor
revives the period and there is simply nothing left to toll. Villegas v. Johnson, 184
F.3d 467, 472 (5th Cir. 1999).

Arista did not file his state habeas application until September 7, 2023, at the
earliest, nearly six months after his federal limitations period had already run. See
Dkt. No. 12-15 at 48. When Arista filed his federal petition on August 2, 2024, he did
so approximately seventeen months after the limitations period expired. His state
habeas application therefore provided no tolling benefit, and Grounds One and Three,
which challenge the validity of the plea and the conditions of the deferred-
adjudication order, are time-barred.
B. Equitable Tolling Is Not Warranted
Arista has not demonstrated entitlement to equitable tolling.

Although AEDPA’s limitations period is subject to equitable tolling, it is
available only in “rare and exceptional circumstances.” Felder v. Johnson, 204 F.3d
168, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2000). To qualify, a petitioner must show “(1) that he has been
pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in
his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010)
(cleaned up). A petitioner must pursue the habeas process with “diligence and
alacrity.” Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508, 511 (5th Cir. 2000). Unexplained delays

do not evince due diligence or rare and extraordinary circumstances. See Fisher v.
Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 715 (5th Cir. 1999).
Nothing in the record suggests either requirement is satisfied. There is no
indication that the State actively misled Arista or that any external obstacle of an
extraordinary nature prevented him from timely filing. Conditions common to
incarceration, such as difficulty obtaining records, indigence, or transfers between

units, do not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable
tolling. Ford v. Stephens, No. 4:13-CV-661-C, 2013 WL 5813013, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct.
29, 2013). Similarly, ignorance of the law and unfamiliarity with filing deadlines,
even for a pro se petitioner, do not establish entitlement to equitable tolling. Felder,
204 F.3d 168 at 171-72.
Arista also cannot demonstrate diligence. He did not file his state habeas
application until September 2023 (after the federal period had already closed) and
offers no explanation for the delay. “Equity is not intended for those who sleep on
their rights.” Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 715 (5th Cir. 1999).

Because the petition was filed after the expiration of the limitations period and
no basis exists for additional statutory or equitable tolling, Grounds One and Three
are time-barred and should be dismissed with prejudice.
II. Alternatively, Arista’s Claims are Unexhausted and Procedurally
Defaulted
Even if the petition were timely as to all three grounds, it would still fail
because Arista did not properly exhaust any of his claims in state court.
A state prisoner may not obtain federal habeas relief unless he first exhausts
available state remedies by fairly presenting his claims to the state’s highest court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); see also Sheppard v. Duke, No. 7:09-CV-131-O, 2011

WL 1196057, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2011) (citing Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789,
795 (5th Cir.1993)). In Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) is the court of last
resort. Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1985).
Where a petitioner advances in federal court a legal theory distinct from that
presented below, or grounds his federal claim on materially different facts, the
exhaustion requirement is not satisfied. See Wilder v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 255, 259 (5th
Cir. 2001) (petitioner must present to the state courts not only the same facts but also

the same legal theory upon which the federal claim is based).
Because Arista did not pursue a petition for discretionary review, his claims
could only have been exhausted through his state habeas application. In that
application, Arista raised four grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) for
failing to object when the trial court allegedly announced a finding of guilt rather
than deferring adjudication, (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure

to pursue related IAC issues on appeal, (3) a procedural request that the state court
designate IAC issues for further development, and (4) an involuntary plea claim
based on the trial court’s alleged failure to follow the plea agreement. See Dkt. No.
12-15 at 38-45.
Those state claims relied on different factual allegations and constitutional
theories than those advanced in his current federal petition. Thus, the state court
was never given the opportunity to consider the claims presented here, and the

exhaustion requirement is not satisfied.
And because Arista has already litigated one state habeas application to final
disposition, any attempt to return to state court to raise these new claims would be
barred as an abuse of the writ under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 § 4. The Fifth
Circuit has repeatedly recognized that the CCA regularly and strictly enforces this
rule. Fearance v. Scott, 56 F.3d 633, 642 (5th Cir. 1995). Arista’s federal claims are

therefore procedurally defaulted.
Even so, a federal court may review a procedurally defaulted claim if the
petitioner demonstrates cause for the default and actual prejudice or establishes that
failure to consider the claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991); see also Smith v. Director, TDCJ-
CID, No. 3:20-CV-2947-G (BT), 2022 WL 18359120, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2022)
(neither a petitioner’s “pro se status” nor his “lack of legal training and knowledge”
constitutes cause to excuse default), rec. adopted, 2023 WL 289721 (N.D. Tex. Jan.
18, 2023).

As to each ground, Arista satisfies neither exception.
1. Ground One
Arista’s first federal ground asserts that the State breached the plea
agreement when the trial court imposed a no-contact condition as part of his deferred-
adjudication supervision. Dkt. No. 3 at 5. In state court, however, Arista’s plea-breach
theory rested on a different factual premise. He argued that the trial court breached
the plea agreement by announcing a finding of guilt at the plea hearing rather than

deferring adjudication. Dkt. No. 12-15 at 38. He never alleged that any condition of
supervision violated the plea agreement or that the imposition of a no-contact
condition constituted the breach. Because the federal claim rests on materially
different facts and a different legal theory, it was never fairly presented. See
Sheppard, 2011 WL 1196057, at *2.
Arista attributes his failure to exhaust this claim to ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel. Dkt. No. 3 at 5. But the Fifth Court of Appeals held that Arista
had waived his right to appeal the original deferred-adjudication order, and the court
therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider challenges to that order in the subsequent
revocation appeal. Arista v. State, 2023 WL 4072117, at *1. That jurisdictional bar
means appellate counsel could not have raised a no-contact-condition claim on direct
appeal regardless, so the attributed ineffectiveness cannot constitute cause.
Arista also does not establish any basis to excuse the procedural default. He
does not explain why this claim was not raised in his state habeas application, where
he pursued a different plea-breach claim based on other facts. His pro se status and

unfamiliarity with the law do not constitute cause sufficient to excuse this default.
Smith, 2022 WL 18359120, at *3. Nor does Arista demonstrate actual prejudice or
show that failure to consider the claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of
justice.
Ground One is therefore procedurally barred.
2. Ground Two
Arista’s Ground Two asserts that the revocation hearing was void as a violation

of due process and fundamental fairness. Dkt. No. 3 at 7. He alleges that he never
left the county jail after the deferred-adjudication order was entered, that his phone
calls were monitored and revealed contact with the victim, that he was immediately
served a revocation notice, and that his probation was revoked at the May 4, 2022,
hearing without a separate punishment phase.
Arista concedes that he did not raise this claim in his state court proceeding.

Id. The record confirms that representation. See Dkt. No. 12-15 at 38-45. None of
Arista’s state claims challenged the revocation proceedings, the service of the
revocation notice, or the absence of a separate punishment hearing. Although Arista
did raise ineffective assistance claims in state court, those claims concerned alleged
errors during the plea proceedings. They did not involve the revocation hearing or
punishment phase that Arista now challenges here. Because the federal claim rests
on a different set of facts and a different constitutional theory than those presented
to the state court, it was not fairly presented and is therefore unexhausted. Wilder,
274 F.3d at 259.

Arista also fails to establish cause to excuse the default. He suggests that the
default should be excused due to ineffective assistance during his collateral review.
Dkt. No. 3 at 7. But there is no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction
proceedings, any alleged deficiency in those proceedings cannot establish cause. See
Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366, 386 (2022); see also Coleman, 501 U.S. at 752.
Because Arista has not shown cause, the Court need not consider whether he can
demonstrate prejudice. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750.

Ground Two is also procedurally barred.
3. Ground Three
Arista’s third and final ground asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary
because trial counsel allegedly misled him regarding the victim’s intentions. Dkt. No.
3 at 8. Specifically, Arista claims counsel told him that the victim was not seeking
prosecution, that he and the victim were on good terms, and that he would therefore

have no difficulty successfully completing probation. Id.
Although Arista raised an involuntary plea claim in his state habeas
application, that claim rested on a different factual theory. In state court, Arista
argued that his plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to follow the plea
agreement by announcing a finding of guilt at the plea hearing rather than deferring
adjudication. See Dkt. No. 12-15 at 38-41, 44-45. He did not allege that counsel
misrepresented the victim’s intentions or that such advice induced him to plead
guilty.
Arista also raised an ineffective assistance claim against trial counsel in his

state application, but that claim concerned counsel’s failure to object to the trial
court’s announcement of guilt at the plea hearing. It did not involve any alleged pre-
plea advice about the victim or the likelihood of successful supervision. The state
courts were therefore never given the opportunity to consider whether counsel’s
alleged misrepresentation about the victim rendered the plea constitutionally
involuntary, and the federal claim rests on facts the state never had before it.
For the same reasons discussed above, Arista does not establish cause and

prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice sufficient to overcome procedural
default.
As a result, Ground Three is procedurally barred.
Because Arista has not shown cause and prejudice or a fundamental
miscarriage of justice as to any claim, all three grounds are procedurally defaulted
and barred from federal habeas review.

Recommendation
The Court should deny the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person
in State Custody [Dkt. No. 3] with prejudice.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. □□□□
P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure
to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
SIGNED March 10, 2026. pabo
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-14-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11366642. Public record. Not legal advice.