Robert Brice Daugherty v. State, 06-15-00039-CR

Appellant Robert Brice Daugherty was indicted in Lamar County on August 14, 2014 for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (four to 200 grams) in a drug-free zone and for possession of diazepam in a drug-free zone, and indicted as a habitual offender.
Appellant was also separately indicted for delivery of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone, again as a habitual offender.
The State offered a plea: 50 years, later reduced to 40 years, with drug-free zone and habitual-offender findings, open until August 29, 2014.
Counsel communicated a 40-year offer to Appellant on August 11, 2014; Appellant countered with 15 years, which the State rejected; the 40-year offer remained open until August 29, 2014.
In November 2014, the trial court allowed new counsel after a conflict-of-interest hearing; Appellant testified he never learned of the 40-year offer.
Appellant eventually pled guilty to three offenses and elected for court to determine punishment; the court sentenced him to life imprisonment for all charges, concurrent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel for failure to relay a plea offer?	Daugherty	State failed to communicate plea, prejudicing him	Yes; prejudiced, reversal warranted

Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (plea offer must be communicated to be prejudicial under Argent)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard of ineffective assistance)
Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (dissent noted in evaluating plea prejudice)
Ex parte Cruz, 739 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (ineffectiveness standards for counsel)
Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (earlier plea-bargain prejudice considerations)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (requires compliance with plea offers communicated by counsel)