Keels, James Kenneth Jr. AKA Keels, James Kenneth
WR-66,781-03
| Tex. Crim. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Applicant James Kenneth Keels Jr. was convicted in Navarro County of possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence; sentenced to 99 years in each case.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions.
- Keels alleges his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to convey a plea offer from the State.
- The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, but did not address the plea-offer claim.
- This Court found Keels’s allegations, if true, could satisfy Strickland prejudice and performance standards and therefore remanded for the trial court to make supplemental findings.
- The trial court is ordered to obtain counsel’s response (and hold a hearing if necessary), determine indigence, and make specific findings on whether a plea offer existed, whether counsel failed to convey it, whether Keels would have accepted it, and whether the prosecution and trial court would have honored it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a plea offer | Keels: counsel did not inform him of a plea offer, which prejudiced him under Strickland | State/counsel: (implicit) either no offer existed or counsel’s conduct was not deficient/no prejudice | Court: Remand for trial-court factfinding; supplemental findings required on offer, conveyance, acceptance, and whether offer would have remained/been accepted |
| Whether the existing habeas findings sufficiently addressed the claim | Keels: existing findings are incomplete on this claim | State: (implicit) findings suffice | Court: Existing findings insufficient; trial court must supplement |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary and counsel should respond | Keels: requests resolution of factual dispute (hearing/interrogatories/affidavits) | State: (implicit) may oppose hearing | Court: Trial court may use any art. 11.07 methods, may hold hearing, and may rely on personal recollection; appoint counsel if applicant is indigent and requests representation |
| Timing and procedure for disposition | Keels: requires timely resolution | State: (implicit) no special timing | Court: Applications held in abeyance; 90 days to resolve facts, 120 days to file supplemental transcript/findings (extensions only by trial court request) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (procedural basis for transmitting habeas applications)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (ineffective-assistance frameworks in post-conviction context)
- Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (post-conviction claims and relief standards)
- Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) (trial court is proper forum for making factual findings on habeas claims)