Gordon, Robert
WR-10,271-21
| Tex. App. | Apr 24, 2015Background
- Relator Robert Gordon, currently imprisoned, challenges multiple Texas convictions and the way sentences were consolidated and stacked.
- Relator claims plea bargains promised concurrent four-year sentences would be enforced; instead, after revocation the court stacked sentences totaling eight years.
- Relator contends enhancements using prior void convictions (from 1977) to augment later sentences were improper and caused prejudice.
- Relator argues the later 1980s-1990s rulings (La Porte, Sims, McJunkins) changed the law and should permit reconsideration of the convictions.
- Relator seeks mandamus/habeas relief to void the convictions, remand for new trial, resentencing, or complete discharge from custody.
- Relator also alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial manipulation in plea negotiations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cumulative sentencing violated plea bargains | Gordon argues stacking violated concurrent plea terms | State argues proper as per prior rulings | Claim rejected or not resolved on merits in this filing |
| Whether void convictions can be used to enhance later sentences | Void 1977 convictions used for enhancement, wrongful | Enhancements valid under law at time of sentencing | Void convictions may be subject to postconviction relief; relief granted or proceedings required for reconsideration |
| Whether due process was violated by increased punishment after revocation | Pearce-line concern: punishment increased after revocation | No due process issue if law allowed it at the time | The issue framed as controlling principle; relief warranted where stacking increased punishment post-revocation |
| Whether prior habeas proceedings bar present relief | Relator not barred by procedural default; seeks merits review | Procedural bars apply; prior abuse arguments valid | Relief sought on merits; not barred by previous rulings in this filing |
| Whether the Court should permit withdrawal of guilty pleas based on unkept plea bargains | Plea bargains were promised to be kept; relator should withdraw pleas | Plea agreements may be reformed or enforced as final | Relief requested; outcome depends on assessment of plea bargains and stacking |
Key Cases Cited
- La Porte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex. Cr. App. 1992) (void sentence; improper cumulation cannot be waived; postconviction relief options described)
- Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. Cr. App. 1993) (void convictions; relief for improper enhancements)
- Ex parte McJunkins, 954 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. Cr. App. 1997) (reliance on void convictions; postconviction relief guidelines)
- Ex parte Reynolds, 462 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. Cr. App. 1970) (automatic concurrent sentences when not explicitly cumulated by court)
- Gordon v. State, 575 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Cr. App. 1978) (early discussion of cumulation; reforming stacking orders)
- Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1985) (habeas review standards; in-custody requirement)