Case Name: Ex parte Robert WATKINS
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1989-05-17
Citations: 770 S.W.2d 816
Docket Number: No. 70188
Parties: Ex parte Robert WATKINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 770
Pages: 816–822

Head Matter:
Ex parte Robert WATKINS.
No. 70188.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
May 17, 1989.
Robert Watkins, pro se.
Bonnie Leggat, Dist. Atty., Marshall, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
W.C. DAVIS, Judge.
Applicant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging an "impossible plea bargain situation" wherein he had agreed to plead guilty to a charge of murder and forego an appeal in the murder case as well as an unrelated cause in another county for which he had been sentenced as an habitual criminal, in return for the State's agreement to drop the capital feature of the indictment against him. Applicant alleged that, regardless of the agreement, he had been given permission to appeal by the trial court but that appointed counsel had failed to prosecute an appeal in his behalf, thereby rendering ineffective assistance of counsel in the case. Because the record did not affirmatively reflect the existence of a plea bargain agreement but did appear to support applicant's claim that he was granted permission to appeal, see Art. 44.02, V.A.C.C.P., we abated the application and remanded the cause to the trial court with orders for that court to hold an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact regarding the existence and terms of an agreement, whether applicant was granted permission to appeal, and if permission was granted, why an appeal was not prosecuted, 761 S.W.2d 25.
The trial court entered an order dated January 13, 1989, requiring affidavits be filed from the applicant, defense counsel, and the district attorney. Pursuant to the order, applicant and his defense counsel filed affidavits with the court. Applicant also filed a motion for continuance, requesting additional time in which to supplement his original application with claims involving an alleged improper affirmative finding made by the trial court at the unitary plea proceeding. Although his motion was granted, the record reflects no further supplementation by applicant within the requested time period. A copy of the statement of facts of the plea hearing was also sent to the trial court for review. There is no response in the record from the district attorney's office.
After reviewing the evidence received pursuant to its order, the trial court made the following findings of fact:
(1) On June 26, 1981 the defendant entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement whereby the State would abandon counts II and III of the indictment and allow the defendant to enter a plea of the lesser included offense of Murder as opposed to Capital Murder as alleged in Count I of the indictment;
(2) That there was no recommendation made by the State as to the punishment to be assessed;
(3) That the defendant waived the ten day statutory period and requested that he be sentenced that day;
(4) That the trial court assess (sic) punishment on June 26, 1981 at life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections;
(5) The trial court advised the defendant that the law, 'Allows you to appeal this to the Court of Criminal Appeals';
(6) The trial court appointed James V. Wedding to pursue any appeal if requested by the defendant;
(7) That James V. Wedding, court ap- ' pointed Appellant (sic) counsel, conferred with the Appellant regarding the appeal of his case;
(8) That the Defendant was advised by his Appellant (sic) counsel of his right to Appeal;
(9) That the appointed counsel on appeal advised the defendant regarding his right to file a motion for new trial;
(10) That the Appellant was advised that in the event his conviction was reversed and remanded and received a new trial, that the District Attorney in his sole discretion could elect to proceed under any and all of the original counts of the indictment and seek the death penalty from a jury against the defendant;
(11) That the Appellant, Robert Watkins declined to exercise his right to appeal and knowingly and voluntarily waived said rights;
(12) The Appellant received effective assistance of counsel on Appeal.
(Citations to affidavit and record omitted)
This Court is not bound by the findings or conclusions made by the trial court, but has a duty to determine if the record developed during an Art. 11.07, supra, evi-dentiary hearing supports the findings of fact made by the trial court. Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 285 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). Generally, if the trial court's findings are supported by the record, they should be accepted by this Court. Id. In the instant case, it is uncontroverted that applicant pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea in which the State dropped the capital counts of the indictment returned against him. Regardless whether he also agreed to forego an appeal, the trial court granted permission and appointed counsel to instruct him regarding that right. The sole question to be decided is whether applicant was denied effective assistance of counsel by attorney Wedding's failure to prosecute an appeal on applicant's behalf.
Both applicant's and counsel's affidavits are clear in stating an appeal was not prosecuted for the reason it was made known to applicant in some fashion that if he appealed, the State could have the opportunity to come back and retry him on a capital charge. Applicant terms his failure to pursue an appeal the product of counsel's telling him that the State would withdraw the plea offer and proceed on capital charges should he appeal. Counsel states in his affidavit that applicant requested he approach the district attorney about a bargain, was adamant to accept the bargain before "they change their minds", and was fully informed as to his appellate rights following the plea hearing. Wedding states he told appellant there were no cognizable claims for appellate review, but that if his case were reversed and remanded for new trial, the district attorney would be free to seek a capital conviction.
Applicant is not contending he ever informed appointed counsel that he wished to appeal, and for some reason counsel failed to give timely notice of appeal or further prosecute an appeal. If such were the case, as the dissent points out, applicant might be entitled to an out-of-time appeal under Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) and Ward v. State, 740 S.W.2d 794 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). However, those cases are distinguishable for the very reason that in both cases, it was undisputed that the individual told counsel he wished to appeal, but counsel failed to pursue an appeal. See Ex Parte Axel, supra, [attorney "never intended" to represent applicant on appeal but failed to withdraw or otherwise notify trial court appellate counsel should be appointed]; Ward, supra. [Appointed counsel filed timely notice of appeal but subsequently "informed" trial court his appointment was limited to trial only without affirmatively withdrawing from case.]
It is also uncontroverted that counsel discussed with applicant his right to appeal and right to assistance of counsel on appeal. Compare Martin v. Texas, 737 F.2d 460 (5th Cir.1984), a case the dissent states is factually analogous to the instant case. There, Martin's unrefuted testimony was that he was not told of his right to appointed counsel on appeal by trial counsel or the trial court. Counsel told Martin he would not prosecute an appeal on Martin's behalf because of the danger Martin could be prosecuted under capital charges if his conviction was reversed on appeal. The 5th Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting an out-of-time appeal on the grounds that Martin was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to advise his client that as an indigent, he had the right to appointed counsel on appeal. The facts in the instant case, while superficially similar, are distinguishable. Here, applicant was aware appellate counsel had been appointed. He discussed with counsel his right to appeal. Counsel did not refuse to prosecute the appeal; he merely advised applicant of the possible consequences of a successful appeal. In doing so, counsel conscientiously pursued his duty as applicant's counselor in the law. As Judge Clinton wrote for this Court in Ex parte Axel, supra:
We also hold that trial counsel, retained or appointed, has the duty, obligation and responsibility to consult with and fully to advise his client concerning meaning and effect of the judgment rendered by the court, his right to appeal from that judgment, the necessity of giving notice of appeal and taking other steps to pursue an appeal, as well as expressing his professional judgment as to possible grounds for appeal and their merit, and delineating advantages and disadvantages of appeal. The decision to appeal belongs to the client.
Axel, 757 at 374.
The record and case law clearly supports the trial court's findings. Ex parte Adams, supra. Applicant was entitled to the benefit of his bargain with the State, and indeed received that for which he knowingly and voluntarily bargained. While the bargain may now have paled due to applicant's presence in prison, counsel's rendition of the circumstances surrounding the proceedings reflect applicant was properly advised regarding his right to appeal as well as the attendant possibility that a successful appeal could result in more severe charges lodged against him on retrial. In reviewing the matter before us, we necessarily reject applicant's version of the circumstances. At the time that applicant agreed to the bargain, he was aware that he had waived any right to appeal. It was only after the terms of the bargain were met and each side had received the benefit of the agreement that the trial court, for whatever reason, gratuitously granted applicant a second opportunity to appeal the case. Applicant is in no position to now complain that he did not enter his plea in a voluntary and knowing fashion. Moreover, appellate counsel did not render ineffective assistance on appeal. Applicant was given a second opportunity to consider the consequences of his agreement and when faced with the possibility of retrial on a charge carrying the death penalty, again decided to waive any right to appeal after being advised of his rights as well as his chances on appeal. See Axel, supra. In choosing the certainty of a prison sentence over the uncertainty of retrial on capital charges, we cannot fault applicant. Neither will we reward him by approving his unsupported hindsight reflections of the proceedings made after twice rejecting his right to a direct appeal.
In two supplemental grounds not reflected in the trial court's findings of fact, applicant alleges the trial court improperly entered an affirmative finding that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon during commission of the offense. Due to the nature of the claims presented, we choose to review these supplemental allegations.
Applicant first complains that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made in that the bargain was violated when the trial judge entered an affirmative finding in the case. The record reflects the deadly weapon finding was made after applicant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The record does not reflect, and applicant has not proven, that the exclusion of the affirmative finding was a part of the plea agreement or that the State was ever under any obligation regarding the affirmative finding. Applicant, as a party to the agreement, has no contractual right to demand specific performance over terms not appearing in the agreement or record. Ex parte Williams, 758 S.W.2d 785 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).
In his second supplemental ground applicant alleges his due process rights were violated because he was not given notice "through the indictment or otherwise," that the State would pursue such a finding. We first note that the record is devoid of any evidence showing the State actively pursued an affirmative finding in the case. As trier of fact, the trial court was in the position to enter such a finding. Second, as to the question of notice, see Ex parte Patterson, 740 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), the record reflects that applicant pled guilty to the first count of the indictment after the capital allegation was dropped. The pertinent part of the indictment reads as follows:
(Applicant) did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual, Marilyn Scallish, by shooting her with a gun....
In Ex parte Beck, 769 S.W.2d 525 (1989), the indictment alleged that death was caused by shooting the victim "with a gun." We held that Beck was given adequate notice of the possibility of a deadly weapon finding by the averment that death had been caused by means of a weapon. In the instant case, a similar averment was made, placing applicant on notice that he was charged with causing the death of the deceased, "by shooting her with a gun." The averment was sufficient to provide notice under Patterson, supra. Id.
The application is reinstated and applicant's request for relief in all matters is denied.