Henry, Willie Iii, WR-73,015-15

Background

Relator Willie Henry pleaded no contest to an amended indictment for aggravated assault and received a three-year deferred adjudication on Oct. 1, 2007; probation was later revoked and he was sentenced to 18 years.
Henry alleges his jury-trial waiver and plea were involuntary because defense counsel demanded additional money to proceed to jury trial, and a conflict of interest existed but the trial court failed to inquire.
Henry also contends the plea and supposed judicial confession omitted the essential element of "serious bodily injury (SBI)," and the State amended the charge after plea papers were signed, denying him proper notice.
He asserts trial counsel abandoned him (failed to file a motion for new trial or timely appeal), appellate counsel raised only limited IAC issues, and habeas relief was not granted.
Henry sought mandamus relief from the Ninth Court of Appeals challenging jurisdiction and sufficiency of the evidence; that court denied the petition, concluding he failed to show entitlement to mandamus relief under the standard governing ministerial duties and adequate remedies.

Issues

Issue	Henry's Argument	State/Respondent's Argument	Held
Involuntary jury-waiver / involuntary plea	Waiver and plea were involuntary because counsel refused a jury trial unless Henry paid more; court failed to ensure waiver was knowing and voluntary.	The trial court followed plea procedures and accepted plea; no mandamus showing that court had a non-discretionary duty violated.	Mandamus denied by the Court of Appeals — relator failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief.
Failure to inquire about conflict of interest / ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC)	Court had PSI showing counsel conflict; it had a duty to inquire and protect Sixth Amendment rights; failure rendered plea and later adjudication void.	Respondent argues no clear showing that the court’s ministerial duty was breached such that mandamus is warranted; IAC issues are typically for appeal or habeas.	Mandamus denied; relator did not establish the mandatory ministerial duty breach required for relief.
Sufficiency of evidence / omission of SBI element in plea/judicial confession	The plea/judicial confession omitted SBI element and the indictment was amended after plea papers, so there was no notice and no admissible judicial confession to support conviction.	State maintains amendment and evidence were procedurally proper; again, these are matters for appeal or habeas, not mandamus absent a clear ministerial violation.	Mandamus denied; relator did not demonstrate the judgment was void in a way that mandates mandamus.
Adequacy of alternative remedies (appeal/habeas) and availability of mandamus	Henry says counsel abandoned him and prior remedies were ineffective or foreclosed, leaving mandamus as the only adequate relief.	Court of Appeals found Henry had not shown he lacked an adequate remedy at law or met the stringent mandamus standard.	Mandamus denied; relator failed to prove lack of adequate remedy and entitlement to the writ.

Key Cases Cited

Hal v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (mandamus standard: relator must show trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty and no adequate remedy exists)
In re Taylor, 130 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (due process deprivation can render order void)
State v. Vasquez, 140 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (involuntary waiver can void judgment)
U.S. v. Combs, 222 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000) (court’s duty to inquire into potential conflicts of interest)
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 633 (U.S. 1986) (Sixth Amendment protections regarding counsel and post-indictment custodial interrogation)
Diaz v. Martin, 718 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir. 1983) (constitutional requirement that pleas be knowingly and voluntarily entered)
U.S. v. Abernathy, 83 F.3d 17 (5th Cir. 1996) (notice and amendment-related principles)