Memorandum in Response to Trial Court Findings Page 1 

No. WR-75,812-04

EX PARTE § IN THE COURT OF 

§ 

§ CRIMINAL APPEALS

§ 

MICHAEL SHAWN SADLER § OF TEXAS

APPLICANT MICHAEL SADLER’S 

MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO TRIAL COURT FINDINGS

COMES NOW Michael Shawn Sadler, Applicant in the above-styled and 

numbered cause, and submits this Memorandum in Response to the Trial Court’s 

Findings.

Introduction

1. Applicant raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 

both at the trial and appellate levels arising from his prosecution, conviction and 

appeal for the offense of murder. This Court determined that the issues presented 

are cognizable and directed the trial court to: (1) require Applicant’s trial and 

appellate counsel to respond to the claims; (2) appoint counsel for Applicant if 

indigent and if the court elects to hold a hearing; (3) make findings of fact and 

conclusions of law regarding the performance of trial and appellate counsel; and (4) 

make any additional findings of fact and conclusions of law deemed relevant and 

appropriate to the disposition of the writ application.

2. The trial court appointed the undersigned counsel and conducted a live 

hearing in this matter on June 29, 2015.

WR-75,812-04

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 10/28/2015 12:11:17 PM

Accepted 10/29/2015 9:00:21 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 10/29/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
Memorandum in Response to Trial Court Findings Page 2

3. After the hearing and considering the proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the trial court signed its findings of fact 

and conclusions of law on July 14, 2015, and filed them on July 20, 2015.

4. The district clerk filed the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions 

of law with this Court in a supplemental record filed on July 24, 2015.

Erroneous Advice Regarding Plea Offer

5. In Applicant’s second ground, he alleges that trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance by giving erroneous advice regarding a plea offer made by the 

State. Specifically, the State offered a 20-year plea offer for the lesser-included 

offense of manslaughter. Applicant contends that trial counsel erroneously advised 

him that manslaughter is an “aggravated” (i.e., 3g) offense that would require him 

to serve one-half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. Applicant 

stated in his original application filed with the district clerk on January 14, 2015 that 

he “would have accepted the State’s offer” but for counsel’s erroneous advice. 

(Habeas Application at 9)

6. This Court has recognized that a habeas applicant has a valid 

ineffective-assistance claim due to erroneous advice regarding a plea offer if the 

applicant shows “a reasonable probability that: (1) he would have accepted the 

earlier offer if counsel had not given ineffective assistance; (2) the prosecution 

would not have withdrawn the offer; and (3) the trial court would not have refused 
Memorandum in Response to Trial Court Findings Page 3

to accept the plea bargain.” Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2013).

7. Applicant testified at the live hearing that his trial counsel told him 

(erroneously) that manslaughter was an aggravated offense for which he would have 

to serve at least half his sentence before he would be eligible for parole. When 

presented with the proper information regarding the fact that manslaughter is not a 

3g offense, Applicant testified that “it’s a strong possibility” he would have accepted 

the plea offer but for counsel’s erroneous advice. (Record of June 29, 2015 hearing 

at 22).

8. The trial court made the following relevant findings (Findings Nos. 8, 

9, 14, 15) regarding this claim:

• Applicant was on probation for possession of a controlled substance 

and there was a pending motion to revoke probation before the court.

• The State offered to reduce the charge from murder to the offense of 

manslaughter if Applicant would agree to twenty years incarceration, 

plus seven years incarceration in the possession of controlled substance 

case. As part of this offer, the sentences were to be stacked. The State 

does not dispute that it would have honored the plea offer.

• Applicant rejected the plea agreement with the understanding that he 

would have to serve at least one-half of his sentence before he would 

be considered for parole and he would have an additional seven-year 

sentence to serve on the controlled-substance case.

• Applicant testified at the hearing that he “would have considered” the 

State’s plea offer had Mr. Walker advised him that manslaughter was 

not an aggravated offense under Article 42.12, § 3g of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure. Applicant made no statement that there was a 
Memorandum in Response to Trial Court Findings Page 4

reasonable probability he would have accepted the state’s plea 

offer if he had received different legal advice. Applicant insisted to 

Mr. Walker that he was innocent and Mr. Walker believed that he was 

not going to plead for that reason. There is no credible evidence that 

Applicant rejected the plea due to bad legal advice or that he would 

have accepted the plea offer if given different legal advice. (emphasis 

added)

. 9. Regarding the last quoted finding (Finding No. 15), the trial court 

appears to have been fixated on Applicant’s failure to quote the relevant case law 

cited above regarding the showing necessary to obtain habeas relief because of 

erroneous advice concerning a plea offer. Although Applicant did not recite the 

precise words employed by this Court in Argent or similar cases regarding his 

likelihood of accepting the plea offer had he been given sound advice, his testimony 

clearly established a reasonable probability that he would have accepted the offer if 

his attorney had given the correct information. Cf. Bryant v. State, 391 S.W.3d 86, 

92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“a party “need not spout ‘magic words’” to preserve an 

issue for appellate review). In addition, he expressly stated in his original habeas 

application that he “would have accepted the State’s offer” but for trial counsel’s 

erroneous advice. (Habeas Application at 9).

10. For these reasons, Finding No. 15 is not supported by the record.

11. Based on the evidence presented, Applicant established that he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to properly advise him 

that manslaughter is not a “3g offense” that would require him to serve a minimum 
Memorandum in Response to Trial Court Findings Page 5

of half the agreed-upon sentence before becoming eligible for parole. Stated 

differently, Applicant established a reasonable probability that he would have 

accepted the manslaughter plea offer but for counsel’s erroneous advice.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant Michael Shawn 

Sadler requests that the Court grant the relief requested in the writ application, and 

grant such other relief to which he may show himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Alan Bennett

E. Alan Bennett

Counsel for Applicant

SBOT #02140700

Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C.

510 N. Valley Mills Dr., Ste. 500

Waco, TX 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-8022

Fax: (254) 772-9297

Email: abennett@slmpc.com

Certificate of Service

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of this document 

has been served by email on October 28, 2015 to counsel for the State, B.J. Shepherd, 

220thda@gmail.com.

 /s/ Alan Bennett

E. Alan Bennett