Court Opinion

ID: 9678025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:09:08.496655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.384507
License: Public Domain

Justice LINDA REYNA YÁÑEZ,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The court of criminal appeals has held that failing altogether to inform a client of a plea offer constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, see Wilson, 724 S.W.2d at 74. I believe that, where no deadline is included with the offer, reasonably effective assistance of counsel must include warning the client that the State has not agreed to hold the offer open for any specified period, and that the offer can be withdrawn at any time. Many clients will not be familiar with legal proceedings, and, like the appellant in this case, may not anticipate that the State might withdraw its offer at any time. The criminal defendant depends on the knowledge and experience of his counsel to protect him against these kinds of pitfalls.
The majority holds that, because Martinez “concurred in the decision not to accept or reject the plea bargain, but to “wait to see what would happen the day of trial,’ ” his claims fails. However, Martinez’s decision to postpone accepting or rejecting the offer was made without knowledge that the offer could be withdrawn.
I would hold that, by failing to warn appellant that there was no deadline included with the State’s offer and that it might be withdrawn at any time, trial counsel’s performance fell below the standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688,104 S.Ct. 2052.
*819I would also hold that appellant was sufficiently prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance to satisfy Strickland. In a recent opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had this to say about this issue:
While a trial court is not obligated to accept the terms of a bargain reached by the parties, courts generally have not required that the defendant show the trial court would have accepted a plea bargain in establishing prejudice in these circumstances. The prevailing view is that a defendant is prejudiced by the missed opportunity of accepting such bargain and presenting it to the trial court for consideration in sentencing, [citations omitted]. Applicant was deprived of the opportunity of accepting the State’s twenty year plea bargain offer and presenting it to the trial court for consideration in setting applicant’s sentence. We hold applicant was prejudiced in this respect.
Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791, 796-97 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
„ Lemke also holds that the proper remedy when a criminal defendant has been deprived of a proper opportunity to accept a plea offer is to reinstate the plea offer. Id. at 798. I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand with orders that the trial court withdraw appellant’s plea, require the State to reinstate the plea offer for four years incarceration, and allow appellant to re-plead.