Ex parte Argent
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 532
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Applicant challenged convictions for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child by contact after rejecting a preferred plea; judge imposed 20 years for each count, concurrent.
- Trial counsel misinformed applicant that he was eligible for judge-ordered community supervision and shock probation; only deferred adjudication by judge is possible.
- Habeas petitions argued ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced the plea decision; trial court found misstatement of law occurred.
- Question presented: what standard governs habeas relief for ineffective assistance in plea negotiations under state law versus federal precedent.
- Texas courts historically used Lemke (federal-standard-like prejudice) while Frye and Lafler (federal standard) later controlled; the court overruled Lemke to align with federal law.
- Court remanded for findings consistent with the standard articulated in this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for prejudice in plea-bargain ineffective assistance | Womack relied on Lemke (less demanding standard) | State contends Frye-Lafler standard controls | Frye-Lafler standard governs; Lemke overruled. |
| What must be shown to establish prejudice when plea offer not conveyed | Applicant would have accepted the offer if informed | Cannot prove what state or court would have done; speculative | Prejudice shown if applicant would have accepted the offer given complete information. |
| Federal supremacy and state-law constraints | Texas law should sustain Lemke's lower bar | State may adapt protections; federal standard applies | State may not override federal constitution; Lemke overruled to conform to Frye-Lafler. |
| Role of postconviction habeas corpus in state constitutional claims | Claims under Texas Constitution should be cognizable | Ex parte Truong/Mallory limit such claims | Claims depend on federal law when court reaches merits on federal issue; other state-law claims barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (established prejudice standard for unshared plea offers with ineffective assistance)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (reasonable probability of more favorable outcome with plea if counsel ineffective)
- Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000) (federal-prejudice standard adopted; criticism of strict postconviction approach)
- Ex parte Truong, 770 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Cr.App. 1989) (habeas claims under Texas Constitution subject to harm analysis)
- Ex parte Wilson, 724 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Cr.App. 1987) (limits misreading of appellate counsel duties; protects fundamental rights)
- Mallory v. State, 752 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (recognizes Texas constitutional claims subject to harm analysis)
- Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994) (appellate counsel duties; later overruled regarding discretionary review)