Case Name: Ex parte James Lee CHANDLER, Jr.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1985-02-06
Citations: 684 S.W.2d 700
Docket Number: No. 69150
Parties: Ex parte James Lee CHANDLER, Jr.
Judges: W.C. DAVIS, McCORMICK and WHITE, JJ., join this dissent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 684
Pages: 700–703

Head Matter:
Ex parte James Lee CHANDLER, Jr.
No. 69150.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Feb. 6, 1985.
James Lee Chandler, Jr., pro se.
Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
THOMAS G. DAVIS, Judge.
This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
On August 9, 1982, applicant was convicted following his plea of guilty to the offense of theft of property over the value of $200.00 and under $10,000.00. Punishment was assessed at eight years in the Texas Department of Corrections in accordance with a plea bargain agreement which provided that his confinement was "To run concurrent with Federal Parole Time."
The plea bargain agreement is borne out by the trial court's finding in its order on the 11.07 application which recites "the Court sentenced the Petitioner to Eight (8) years in the Texas Department of Corrections in accordance with the Plea Bargain Agreement which is attached hereto as Exhibit B." Exhibit B, denominated "Plea Bargain Agreement," signed by applicant, his attorney and the district attorney, reflects "confinement Texas Department of Corrections for 8 years . To run concurrent with Federal Parole time."
Applicant maintains that the agreement to give him credit on his federal parole time by running his punishment with his federal parole time is an agreement which the State is unable to perform. Where the inducement for a defendant to enter a plea of guilty is a representation by the State which it cannot keep, doubt is raised as to whether a guilty plea under such circumstances can be regarded as truly voluntary. Ex parte Burton, 623 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Bass v. State, 576 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). When a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the State is bound to carry out its side of the bargain. DeRusse v. State, 579 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The trial court as well as this Court would be unable to order specific enforcement of the plea bargain since this is a matter for determination by the Federal Parole Commission. Clearly, that Commission is not bound to honor any plea bargain agreement made in a state court that punishment assessed there is to run concurrent "with Federal Parole Time." The plea bargain agreement herein being one that is not enforceable, the applicant is entitled to withdraw the plea. Applicant is entitled to the relief sought.
The relief sought is granted, applicant is ordered remanded to the Sheriff of Johnson County to answer the indictment in Cause No. 23687 of the 249th Judicial District Court of Johnson County.
It is so ordered.
. In Moody v. Doggett, 429 U.S. 78, 81, 97 S.Ct. 274, 275, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976) the United States Supreme Court sets forth the courses of action that the Federal Parole Commission can take when a federal parolee is convicted of a new offense. The matter of whether the remainder of the parole violator's original sentence would run concurrent with punishment assessed in a subsequent offense is a matter for determination solely by the Federal Parole Commission.