Scott, Trey Barton
WR-82,039-02
| Tex. App. | Feb 27, 2015Background
- Trey B. Scott (TDCJ-CID #01592136) pled guilty in Coleman County to two counts of intoxicated manslaughter and received concurrent 14-year sentences on October 30, 2007; he waived direct appeal as part of the plea bargain.
- Scott filed state habeas applications claiming his pleas were involuntary because trial counsel advised acceptance of the plea without completing investigation or obtaining full discovery.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the cases to develop a record on the involuntariness/ineffective-assistance claims and ordered trial counsel Don Wilson to file an affidavit; counsel filed an affidavit but Scott says he was not served with it.
- Scott alleges counsel failed to: obtain full discovery (autopsy/toxicology reports for victims, maintenance/records for a portable breath device, breath test records), subpoena the person who drew his blood, request funding for an investigator, or independently test/preserve evidence before advising the plea.
- Scott contends counsel did not explain consequences (e.g., deadly-weapon finding implications on parole eligibility) and that, but for counsel’s deficient advice, he would have gone to trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott's guilty plea was involuntary due to counsel's erroneous advice | Counsel failed to investigate/disclose material facts and consequences; plea was unknowing and involuntary | Counsel asserts he obtained substantial discovery (via ALR materials) and advised Scott based on that information | Court of Criminal Appeals remanded to develop record; claim not finally resolved in this submission |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequate pre-plea investigation | Counsel did not interview witnesses, secure autopsy/toxicology, test or preserve evidence, or seek independent testing | Counsel filed motions for discovery and preservation and submitted an affidavit responding to ineffective-assistance claims | Matter returned for further factual development (affidavit disputed as to service and sufficiency) |
| Whether the State withheld favorable/exculpatory evidence (Brady-type claim) | Important exculpatory evidence (victims' toxicology, breath test maintenance/records) was not disclosed before plea decision | State relied on open-file/discovery provided; counsel contends he had sufficient materials from ALR process | Allegation raised in habeas; remand ordered to clarify what was produced; unresolved here |
| Whether the trial court's deadly-weapon finding was erroneous or its consequences were explained | Scott says counsel failed to explain that a deadly-weapon finding would affect parole eligibility and sentence consequences | Counsel did not specifically address explanation in affidavit excerpts; claims of advising client are disputed | Claim preserved for habeas development; no final adjudication in this pleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (right to counsel integral to fair hearing and due process)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (right to effective assistance of counsel in plea contexts)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (ineffective assistance threatens the reliability of criminal proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland prejudice standard applied to guilty pleas)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (strategic decisions entitled to deference only when grounded in adequate investigation)
- Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001) (any increase in prison time can constitute prejudice under Strickland)