Autry, Bobby Drew
WR-81,972-05
Tex.Mar 26, 2015Background
- Defendant Bobby Drew Autry pleaded guilty in 2004 to Sexual Assault of a Child (Tex. Penal Code §22.011), received a 10‑year deferred adjudication/community supervision order, and was subject to Chapter 62 sex‑offender registration requirements.
- Probation included intensive sex‑offender treatment, polygraph/psych testing, residence restrictions (no contact with minors, stay >1,000 feet from places where minors congregate), DNA, fees, and periodic urine testing.
- Between 2008–2011 prosecutors and probation officers alleged multiple probation violations (positive quick UA later negative on lab test; alleged refusal/failure to take required polygraphs; other treatment/condition noncompliance); warrants issued and the case was transferred among courts (283rd → 291st).
- Autry contends the court(s) unlawfully and constructively modified his plea/probation (including insistence on new/"modified" probation conditions he did not agree to), held him in custody without proper violation findings or motion to proceed, coerced a judicial confession while he was medicated, and provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court ultimately adjudicated guilt (Feb. 11, 2011) and imposed lengthy confinement (record reflects life sentences stacked); Autry filed habeas/mandamus petitions and sought relief based on actual‑innocence allegations and recanted complainant statements.
- The post‑conviction courts (291st) reviewed the habeas application, found no controverted, previously unresolved material facts requiring an evidentiary hearing, and recommended denial of relief; appeals and writs were pursued to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State / Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Autry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of court’s modification of probation conditions / detention without formal violation hearing | Court/prosecution treated alleged noncompliance as basis to detain and proceed toward adjudication; enforcement of treatment/testing conditions necessary for supervision | Autry: court unlawfully and constructively modified plea/probation without his consent or a proper motion to proceed; detention without a true violation or opportunity to withdraw plea violated due process | Trial courts found no reversible defect requiring evidentiary hearing; post‑conviction court recommended denial of habeas relief (no controverted facts requiring hearing) |
| Sufficiency / admissibility of "judicial confession" and other evidence supporting adjudication | Confession and probation records established basis to proceed with adjudication | Autry: confession was coerced/obtained while medicated; key evidence (complainant recantations, negative lab results) undermines conviction and was not considered; without confession there's no evidence | Courts credited the record and adjudicated guilt; habeas relief denied at the recommendation stage (no factual dispute warranting hearing) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State: counsel’s performance did not deprive defendant of fair process sufficient to overturn conviction | Autry: counsel failed to investigate, failed to present recantations and mental‑health evidence, advised poorly regarding modified conditions, producing constitutionally deficient representation | Autry raised claim in post‑conviction filings; courts did not find disputed facts requiring an evidentiary hearing and recommended denial of relief |
| Actual innocence based on complainant recantations discovered after plea | State: record and procedural posture did not establish entitlement to relief based on recantations | Autry: recantations and new evidence show actual innocence and undermine plea/adjudication; warrants and detention were improper | Post‑conviction court determined applicant’s claims lacked merit and no hearing was required; relief was recommended to be denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (collateral attack is proper when revocation is based on no evidence)
- Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (judgment is void where the record clearly reflects no evidence to support the conviction)
- Ex parte Tuley, 109 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App.) (a guilty plea does not necessarily preclude a later habeas claim of actual innocence when new evidence emerges)
- Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (standards for post‑conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence)
- Ex parte Harmon, 116 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (habeas review of claims alleging innocence or constitutional defects)
- Ex parte Carmona, 185 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (procedural posture and standards for habeas relief)
- Ex parte Zapata, 235 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (post‑conviction review of recantations and related claims)
- Nero v. Blackburn, 597 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1979) (ineffective‑assistance standards and prejudice analysis)
(Notes: summary synthesizes procedural history and the primary legal contentions appearing in the record. The post‑conviction court found the habeas claims without merit and recommended denial based on the record; the file reflects multiple transfers, recusal, and extensive contested probation enforcement proceedings.)