Cox, Gilmore Franklin
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 10
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Applicant pled guilty to Count I (possession of methamphetamine <1 gram) and no contest to Count II (possession of acetone, lye, iodine crystals, lighter fluid, and/or red phosphorus with intent to manufacture methamphetamine).
- Trial court sentenced 20 years on Count I and 35 years on Count II, running concurrently; enhancements alleged multiple prior felonies.
- On appeal, applicant challenged Count II as failing to allege an offense; state argued appellate dismissal due to waiver in plea bargain.
- Initial plea process involved a waiver of jury trial; confusion over whether a plea deal was a package deal.
- Remands instructed trial court to determine if Count II substances were true immediate precursors and whether the plea was a package deal; Count II ultimately deemed invalid.
- Court held the entire plea bargain unenforceable due to the package-deal defect; remanded to re-sentencing and return to original positions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was a package deal | Cox argues count interdependence makes it a package deal. | State contends no package deal; counts are severable. | Yes, it was a package deal. |
| Remedy when part of a plea bargain is invalid | If part invalid, defendant should be restored; remedy may be withdrawal. | State may salvage remaining terms or require restoration to original positions. | Entire bargain must be voided; parties returned to original positions. |
| Whether Count II state/indictment supported an offense | Count II and substances alleged could be valid under the indictment. | Count II lacked a valid offense as drafted; plea invalid. | Count II did not state an offense; invalid. |
| Effect of Count II invalidating the bargain on Count I | Count I remains viable with its own consideration. | With bargain invalidated, Count I loses consideration and is void. | Entire plea bargain void; return to original positions. |
| Appropriate procedural posture post-remedy | Withdrawal of plea and reversion appropriate. | Specific performance of remaining terms could be considered. | Withdraw the plea; remand for re-sentencing; return to pre-plea positions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (state must keep promises; plea bargains require enforceable terms)
- Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (remedy for invalid plea is withdrawal or specific performance)
- Ex parte Moussazadeh, 64 S.W.3d 404 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (plea bargains governed by contract-law principles)
- Ex parte Adkins, 767 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (terms left to parties; not to be enforced to due-process detriment)
- Ex parte Williams, 758 S.W.2d 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (mutual benefit considerations in plea bargains)
- Bitterman v. State, 180 S.W.3d 139 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (enforceability of state's promises in plea bargains)
- Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (state may waive illegal portion of judgment and keep remainder)
- Ex parte McJunkins, 926 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (waivers and package-deal considerations in plea bargains)
- Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (returning to pre-plea positions where appropriate)
- State v. Moore, 240 S.W.3d 248 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (application of package-deal remedies in multi-count pleas)
- Ex parte De Leon, 400 S.W.3d 83 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (remedy framework for invalid plea portions)