Phillips, Kenneth Wayne
WR-82,412-05
| Tex. App. | Apr 15, 2015Background
- Kenneth Phillips filed pro se habeas corpus relief in Ex parte, challenging ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations in Harris County, Texas.
- Phillips alleges he was offered a 15-year plea which his attorney failed to communicate to prosecutors, leading to its lapse and his current 35-year sentence.
- The attorney allegedly coerced Phillips to reject the 15-year offer and provided erroneous, misleading advice influencing the harsher outcome.
- Phillips contends the representation violated Strickland and related Sixth Amendment standards, aided by Lafler and Frye analyses.
- Texas court is urged to return to the 15-year offer or provide other post-conviction relief consistent with Frye/Lafler and related authorities.
- The motion cites ABA standards and various state and federal authorities on the duty to communicate plea offers and ensure effective assistance during plea bargaining.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for not communicating the plea offer? | Phillips (Phillips) | Harris allegedly failed to convey the 15-year offer | Yes; potential relief including reoffer of 15 years |
| Did counsel's advice prejudice the outcome of the plea/b sentence? | Phillips would have accepted 15 years | Counsel's guidance not prejudicial | Yes; prejudice shown under Strickland/Lafler/Frye |
| Does the record show coercion or misinformation by counsel affecting the plea decision? | Counsel coerced rejection and misled about offers | No coercion shown beyond arguable ineffectiveness | Prejudice established; relief warranted |
| Are Frye/Lafler applicable to post-conviction relief for plea-offer failures? | Frye/Lafler require remedy when offer lapse due to counsel's failure | Frye/Lafler limited to plea-stage relief | Applicable; remedy possible |
| Should the court order reoffering the 15-year plea or other relief? | Court should return to the 15-year offer | Relief beyond reoffer unnecessary | Relief appropriate; reoffer or equivalent remedy |
| Do ABA standards support immediate communication of offers? | ABA standards require prompt communication | Standards are advisory | Standards support remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 2012 (2012) (duty to communicate formal plea offers to the defendant)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 2012 (2012) (ineffective assistance where rejection of plea leads to harsher sentence)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland standard applied to guilty pleas)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel in plea negotiations)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. (2010) (2010) (counsel must provide accurate advice on immigration consequences (contextual))
- Aba Ein v. State, 921 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist] 1995) ( Sixth Amendment counsel requirements in Texas context)
- Gillum v. State, 959 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.App.—Houston 1995) (comparison to involuntary plea due to erroneous advice)