Court Opinion

ID: 9660776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:20:30.204245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:22.032207
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus that was filed in the trial court by Perry Gene Pruitt, applicant, that is before this Court pursuant to Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
A majority of this Court holds: “We find that applicant’s plea was involuntary since the terms of the plea bargain were impossible to fulfill.” It then orders that applicant is entitled to relief.
Because of the condition of the record that is before us, and, furthermore, because the joint statement of the attorneys who presently represent the applicant and the State of Texas, upon which the majority relies, is not based upon facts; instead, it is based upon conclusions of the parties, there is need for a full-scale evidentiary hearing to be conducted in the trial court.
The joint statement reflects, inter alia: “Therefore, although the State and Applicant entered into a written plea bargain agreement, the confusion concerning the terms of the agreement make it unclear exactly to what the parties were agreeing. [My Emphasis]. There was no meeting of the minds. Thus, there was no plea bargain.” This joint statement is totally unsupported by any facts in the record before us. The affidavit of the attorney who represented applicant states, inter alia: “In the confusion in the courtroom the day this case was tried, my client pled guilty to aggravated robbery and received 25 years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections ... In my opinion, because of the confusion, there was no true agreement between my client and the State with regard to the terms of the plea offered ...” If there was “confusion” in the courtroom that day, pray tell, what on earth was the “confusion”?
An evidentiary hearing needs to be conducted in order that we can know exactly what occurred on the day applicant entered his plea of guilty.
The record before us clearly reflects that applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated robbery, and that this occurred pursuant to the written “Plea Bargain Agreement” that is in the record before us, that was entered into by applicant, his attorney, and the prosecuting attorney. By the terms of the agreement, applicant agreed to plead guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery in exchange for the State recommending punishment to be assessed at twenty-five (25) years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections. In addition, it was agreed between the parties that “No finding of firearm exhibited” would be made by the trial judge. Thus, the record clearly reflects that there was a plea bargain agreement and that the agreement was in all things carried out.
Without a full-scale evidentiary hearing having been conducted, the majority holds that applicant’s conviction is void because of a broken plea bargain agreement. In light of the record before us, how can this Court state that there was a plea bargain agreement? The trial judge himself, who originally presided over the case, has ex*908pressly found that because of the confusion” that existed in the courtroom that day there was “no plea bargain.” If “confusion” reigned in the courtroom that day, how could there have been a valid plea bargain agreement? If there was “confusion” in the courtroom that day, before deciding whether to grant applicant relief, shouldn’t we at least know what the “confusion” was?
There is a right way and a wrong way to dispose of the issue that is before us. The right way is to remand this cause to the trial court in order that a full-scale eviden-tiary hearing might be conducted. Today, however, the majority takes the wrong way.
In light of the record that is before us, I cannot in good conscience vote to grant applicant relief on the basis that there was a broken plea bargain agreement. I respectfully dissent to the manner in which the issue that is before this Court is being disposed of by the majority.
ONION, P.J., joins.