Case Name: Ex parte Lionel Craig YOUNG, Sr.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1985-02-06
Citations: 684 S.W.2d 704
Docket Number: No. 69195
Parties: Ex parte Lionel Craig YOUNG, Sr.
Judges: W.C. DAVIS, McCORMICK and WHITE, JJ., join in this opinion.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 684
Pages: 704–708

Head Matter:
Ex parte Lionel Craig YOUNG, Sr.
No. 69195.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Feb. 6, 1985.
Bruce S. Fox, Huntsville, for appellant.
Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
MILLER, Judge.
This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Art. 11.07, Y.A.C.C.P.
The record reflects that on January 18, 1980, following his plea of guilty, applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery, felony escape, and three counts of theft over $200. Punishment was assessed at twelve years confinement in the aggravated robbery conviction and ten years confinement in the other four convictions.
Applicant contends that his pleas of guilty were involuntary because they were induced by a plea bargain, the conditions of which were impossible to perform.
The record reflects that, as a part of the plea bargain, the applicant was told that his sentences would run concurrently with his sentence out of Colorado. The following excerpts from the trial described the agreement:
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Now, you have entered into a plea bargain and this is your understanding of the plea bargain that in each case, the three theft cases you will receive ten years concurrent sentence and that that sentence will also run concurrently with the parole case that you have in Colorado?
"A: That is correct.
"Q: You are on parole from Colorado; is that correct?
"A: That is correct.
"Q: And is it your understanding that all five cases, in fact, will run concurrently with your parole situation in Colorado?
"A: That is correct.
⅜
"[THE PROSECUTOR]: You also understand that part of the plea bargaining agreement in this case is that the State agreed that the case that you have out of the State of Colorado Cause Number 26028 out of Division One Register Number 044365, any case that you have up there that has been taken to final judgement and sentence is to run concurrent with the time that you are about to receive in these cases; is that correct?
"A: Yes.
"Q: And you also understand that as part of the plea bargaining agreement that the State of Colorado will be immediately notified of the disposition of these cases so that they can take any course of action that they want to with regard to bringing you back to Colorado?
"A: Yes, sir.
*
"[THE PROSECUTOR]: In the case that was quoted, the number I just read into the record where we have agreed to run the Texas time concurrent with the Colorado time, if those are not the right cause numbers or the right cases, let it be understood that the State of Texas agrees that whatever case Lionel Craig Young, Sr. has in the State of Colorado that has been reduced to final judgement and sentence, the State agrees that the Texas time can run concurrent with the Colorado time.
"[THE COURT]: All right.... All of those to run concurrent with what you got in Colorado.
"[THE DEFENDANT]: Yes, Your Hon- or."
In each of the causes, the sentences explicitly provide that "DEFENDANT'S TIME IS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH CASES IN COLORADO."
The record reflects that applicant's Texas sentences are not running concurrently with his Colorado sentence. The Colorado authorities withdrew the warrant and de-tainer by letter dated April 23, 1980, and have tolled the running of the Colorado sentence while applicant is incarcerated in Texas. They have requested that the Texas Department of Corrections notify them prior to applicant's release and have specifically informed applicant that his Colorado sentence cannot be run concurrently.
Clearly, the Dallas County officials did not have the authority to bind the State of Colorado to follow the plea bargain. In Ex parte Burton, 623 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), we granted relief in a case with facts similar to those in the instant cause. In Burton, supra at 419, it was held that since the defendant was induced to enter a plea of guilty based upon a representation that he would receive credit upon his federal sentence while in state custody, and he was not receiving that credit, the defendant's plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered and he was entitled to withdraw the plea. See Bass v. State, 576 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Joiner v. State, 578 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
Burton, supra, controls the disposition of the instant cause. See also Ex parte Huerta (Tex.Cr.App.1985, No. 69,352, January 30, 1985); Ex parte Chandler, 684 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).
The relief sought is granted. The judgments are set aside and applicant is ordered remanded to the Sheriff of Dallas County to answer the indictments in these causes. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Corrections.
It is so ordered.