# IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O S . A P - 7 6 , 8 9 1 & A P - 7 6 , 8 9 2 Ex parte AND REW KELLY ARG ENT

O N A P P L I C A T I O N S F O R W R I T S O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

F R O M L I B E R T Y C O U N T Y

W omack , J., delive red the opinion of the Court, in w hich Keller, P.J., and Pric e, He rvey , Cochran, and Alcala JJ

., joined. Johnson and Keasler, JJ ., concurre d. Mey ers, J., not participating.
These a pplications for ha

beas c orpus re lief ar e bef ore us f or a se cond time. After rec eiving faulty

advice from his trial counse l, the applicant r ejec ted a plea barg ain of eig ht y ear s’ imprisonment for ag g rava ted sexual assault and indec ency with a child. I

nstead, he wa ived trial by

jury , pleade d g uilty

without an ag ree ment, and re ceive d concur rent sente nces of twenty y ear s’ conf

inement. L ater

he filed ha

beas- corpus a

pplications alleg ing tha t constitutionally

ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel ca used him to rejec t the State’s offe r.

## 2

On the first submission, we he ld that the standard f or dete rmining pr ejudice in c ases of 1 

## ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel during the plea- barg aining proce ss is that established by the Supreme Court of the U nited States in Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper , rathe r than a less 2 3 

## rig orous standar d for pr ejudice tha t we set out in Ex parte Lemk e. Although sta tes may

supply 4 

## more rig hts and protec tions to defendants throug h their own law s than those g iven by their fede ral c ounterpa

rts, states may

not interpret the f

eder al Constitut ion in a way inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s inter preta tion. Our opinion in Lemke was our be st prediction of how the

5 

## Supreme Court would rule in suc h a ca se. I t could not have be en base d on Texas case law beca use ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel claims ra ised under the Texas Consti tution are not cog nizable under a

rticle 11.07. Fur

ther, in the c ontext of ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel 6 

## claims, our state c onstitut ion usually does not supply

any more prote ction than its feder al counter part a nd may supply less. 7 

## We then rema

nded the a

pplications to the convicting court for finding s of fa ct and conclusions of law— specific ally , whether the applica

nt proved a

rea sonable proba

bility that: (1)

S e e E x p a r t e A r

g e n t , N o s . A P
- 7 6 , 8 9 1 & A P
- 7 6 , 8 9 2 , 2 0 1 3 L E X I S 5 3 2 ( T e x . C r . A p p . M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 1 3 )

. 1 1 3 2 S
. C t
. 1 3 9 9 , 1 8 2 L
. E d

. 2 d 3 7 9 ( 2 0 1 2 )

. 2 1 3 2 S
. C t
. 1 3 7 6 , 1 8 2 L
. E d

. 2 d 2 9 8 ( 2 0 1 2 )

. 3 1 3 S
. W
. 3 d 7 9 1 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( H o l d i n g t h a t , i n t h e p l e a - b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s , a n a p p e l l a n t i s 4 p r e j u d i c e d s i m p l y “ b y t h e m i s s e d o p p o r t u n i t y o f a c c e p t i n g s u c h b a r g a i n a n d p r e s e n t i n g i t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ” N o f

u r t h e r s h o w i n g , f

o r i n s t a n c e t h a t t h e o f

f e r w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n r e v o k e d a n d w o u l d h a v e b e e n a c c e p t e d b y t h e c o u r t , i s n e e d e d ) ( o v e r r u l e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s )

.

A r g e n t , 2 0 1 3 L E X I S 5 3 2 , a t * 5 ; D a n f o r t h v . M i n n e s o t a , 5 5 2 U
. S
. 2 6 4 , 2 7 7 ( 2 0 0 8 )

. 5 E x p a r t e D u t c h o v e r , 7 7 9 S
. W
. 2 d 7 6 , 7 7 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 9 )

. 6 H e r n a n d e z v . S t a t e , 9 8 8 S
. W
. 2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2

- 7 3 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 9 )

. 7

## 3

he would have acc epted the e arlier offe r if counse l had not g iven ineff ective a ssistance, (2) the prosec ution would not have withdraw n the offe r, and ( 3) the trial c ourt would not have r efuse d to
acc ept the plea

barg ain. 8 

## The judg e of the convicting court found tha t:
...there exis ted no re asonable probability that Applicant would have acc epted the offe r of e ight ( 8) y ear s confineme nt, irrespe ctive of tria l counsel’s de ficient repr esenta tion, because Applicant’s g oal was to re ceive community supervision rathe r than inca

rce ration. Whil e this court is not bound by the finding s of the habe as cour t, we should follow them wher e they are supported by

the re cord. We hold that this finding is supported. During the habe as

9 

## hear ing, the applicant c oncede d that he wa s g iven pape rs that ac cura tely stated the ty

pes of community

supervision for w hich he wa s elig ible. Fur ther, he g ave inc onsistent statements as to why he wa nted proba tion but not deferr ed adjudication. Having found that the a

pplicant would not have a cce pted the ea rlier plea barg ain eve n with effe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, we do not ne ed to re ach the rest of the finding s. Consequently , based upon the trial court’ s findings a nd conclusions and our

own re view of the
rec ord, we deny

relief on all g rounds.

Deliver ed May

15, 2013. Do not publish.

A r g e n t , 2 0 1 3 L E X I S 5 3 2 a t * 8
. 8 L e m k e , 1 3 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 7 9 6 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 0 )

. 9