Johnson, Dietrick Lewis Sr.
WR-83,532-01
| Tex. | Jun 30, 2015Background
- Applicant Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr., pro se and incarcerated in federal custody, seeks writs of mandamus and habeas relief challenging state convictions in Collin County (multiple cause numbers) and parallel federal proceedings.
- He alleges prosecutors used his federal plea agreement as a confession in state cases, withheld exculpatory MetroPCS phone records, and engaged in misconduct to secure guilty pleas.
- He claims his court‑appointed trial counsel (Rafael De La Garza) provided constitutionally deficient assistance, failing to investigate, subpoena witnesses and records, and coercing acceptance of a 60‑year plea.
- He asserts violations of due process, the Texas Constitution (Art. I, §19 and §10), the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, Brady materiality, and statutory offenses (e.g., simulating legal process, improper influence).
- Procedurally: applicant filed an Art. 11.07 writ of habeas corpus in May 2014 raising prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance; he alleges administrative failures (clerk/appeals court did not transmit or respond) and that his motions for discovery and related petitions went unanswered while he was transferred to federal custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady violation | Walker withheld material MetroPCS records and used federal plea as confession in state cases, denying due process | State contends it would not use federal plea as confession (and denies misconduct) | (Opinion text is an applicant petition; no final court holding provided on merits in this document) | |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (pre‑plea investigation) | Counsel failed to investigate, subpoena witnesses/evidence, and misadvised applicant to accept plea | State/record would likely assert counsel advised reasonably or that plea was voluntary | (No final adjudication in the pleading; applicant alleges Strickland‑type claims) | |
| Validity and use of federal plea agreement in state prosecution | Federal plea was entered into state record and used as confession; U.S. and State prosecutors coordinated improperly | Prosecutors later certified they would not use the federal plea as confession | Applicant alleges the certification was false/misleading and influenced federal judge to deny plea withdrawal | (No final ruling in this filing) |
| Denial of procedural remedies / court administration failures | Clerk and appeals court failed to transmit and act on designated issues and discovery requests; habeas proceedings stalled during custody transfers | Courts/officials may contend procedural compliance or docketing issues; not addressed in this petition | (No final ruling in this filing) | |
| Actual innocence / perjury and record fraud | Prosecutors committed perjury and created fraudulent court records to secure convictions/pleas | State disputes these factual allegations | (No final ruling in this filing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for challenges to guilty pleas)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (role of counsel in plea and pretrial stages)
- Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (counsel investigation obligations)
- Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 506 (Tex. Crim. App.) (postconviction relief standards)
- Ex parte Lilly, 665 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App.) (postconviction counsel‑related considerations)
- Ex parte Welborn, 785 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural and ineffective assistance frameworks)
- Ex parte Felton, 815 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. Crim. App.) (postconviction relief principles)
- Cardenas v. State, 960 S.W.2d 941 (Tex. Crim. App.) (ineffective assistance and plea considerations)