Court Opinion

ID: 9778202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:55:26.396786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.681382
License: Public Domain

O’CONNOR, Justice,
dissenting on rehearing.
I dissent. We should grant rehearing to examine the underlying premise to the majority’s opinion—that a trial judge can threaten jail time if a defendant insists on his right to a jury trial instead of pleading guilty.
The appellant is a recent Russian emigre who speaks only broken English and whose only translator was his son, another Russian *209emigre. The appellant contends that his lawyer was ineffective. He says his plea of guilty was involuntary because it was based on misinformation received from his lawyer, I agree with the appellant.
Cashin, the appellant’s lawyer, did nothing in preparation for trial. The litany of the things Cashin failed to do is long.1 In short, he did nothing at all, including discussing the case with the appellant.
On the day of trial, because Cashin was not prepared for trial, he told the appellant to accept an offer of the State. Cashin was so ignorant about the case that he did not know that the State’s offer had been withdrawn. Once Cashin realized the offer was no longer available, he had two options: he could proceed with the trial (for which he was completely unprepared and would surely be found ineffective on appeal) or he could persuade his client to plead guilty.
The only way Cashin could persuade the appellant to plead guilty was to tell him that the judge said if the appellant insisted on going to trial, the judge would sentence him to prison; and, the only way to avoid prison was to plead guilty. Both Cashin and the appellant testified at the motion for new trial hearing that Cashin told the appellant the judge said he would impose jail time if the appellant went to trial. Although other discussions between Cashin and the appellant were disputed, that one is not.
The majority holds that the statement Cashin made to the appellant as an inducement to plead guilty was not misinformation; that the trial court was within his rights to make such a statement. Thus, the majority reasons, when Cashin told the appellant the judge threatened jail time if the appellant went to trial, Cashin was not repeating anything that was impermissible because the judge could have properly made such a statement. The majority cites no authority to support the statement that a judge can threaten the appellant -with jail if the appellant insists on a jury trial.
I disagree with the majority’s statement that a judge could properly make such a statement. A judge cannot threaten to impose jail time if the defendant exercises his right to a jury trial. For example, in Cleaveland, v. State, 507 S.W.2d 769, 769-70 (Tex.Crim.App.1974), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that it was improper to threaten to impose a harsher punishment if the defendant was going to appeal. A judge cannot put a price on a jury trial.
A judge cannot make a pre-commitment to punishment. Jefferson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, no pet.) (judge cannot assess a promised punishment to maintain his credibility). That is what Cashin told the appellant the judge did in this case. Worse, Cashin coupled the pre-commitment to jail-time to the appellant’s right to a jury trial.
I would hold the appellant’s plea of guilty was based on misinformation and, thus, was involuntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1713, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Ex parte Griffin, 679 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); McGuire v. State, 617 S.W.2d 259, 261 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
I would reverse.

.The appellant’s lawyer did not:
1. Discuss with the appellant whether he would testify at trial.
2. Discuss the content of the appellant’s testimony.
3. Ask for names of character witnesses.
4. Discuss the procedure for trial; how a jury was selected; the burden of proof; how witnesses are examined and cross-examined.
5. Contact Maudlin about the appellant's statement at the hospital.
6. Discuss with the appellant his statement to the hospital.
7. Meet with the appellant, except at the courthouse.
8. Call the appellant on the telephone.
9. Go to the hospital to view the scene of the crime.
10. Discuss courtroom etiquette with the appellant.