Thomas, Dayveon Lashawn, WR-92,944-02

Applicant Dayveon LaShawn Thomas pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery (offenses dated March 2 and March 4, 2020); pleas taken January 13, 2021 (no reporter's record in file).
Aggravation was based on use or exhibition of a “firearm,” a deadly weapon per se; he received concurrent 15-year sentences.
After the pleas, the State developed evidence in a related case and admitted the weapon was not a firearm, and the State conceded the pleas were involuntary.
The convicting court recommended habeas relief; the Court’s majority granted relief relying on Ex parte Mable.
Justice Yeary dissented, arguing (1) Mable should be overruled and (2) the record does not show the pleas were involuntary because neither side knew at the time the weapon was not a firearm.
Yeary also notes Applicant alleged no alternative due-process or ineffective-assistance claims and that his sentences fall within the punishment range for the lesser offense (robbery), so no illegal-sentence claim is asserted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether guilty pleas were involuntary because the State later admitted the weapon was not a firearm	Pleas involuntary; would not have pled if State could not prove a firearm (relying on Mable)	Pleas remain voluntary if the defendant entered them aware of what he did not know; Mable should be overruled	Majority granted relief under Mable; dissent would deny relief and reject Mable
Whether summary relief was proper without further fact development for other due-process/IAC claims	Applicant did not assert other claims; but State concession supports summary relief	If other theories were or could be asserted, remand for fact development is required	Court granted summary relief; dissent would remand if other claims were asserted
Whether applicant can claim illegal sentence or relief under Wilson (guilty only of lesser offense)	Applicant did not allege new evidence showing guilt only of lesser offense	Sentences are within the range for robbery; no illegal-sentence claim asserted	Dissent: no Wilson or illegal-sentence basis shown; remand would be required to develop such a claim
Whether Ex parte Mable remains good law	Applicant relies on Mable to invalidate plea after State’s post-plea admission	Mable is incorrect; ignorance of facts known to be unknown at plea time should not render plea involuntary	Majority follows Mable; dissent urges overruling it

Ex parte Mable, 443 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (authorizes vacatur of pleas where post-plea evidence shows a foundational fact relied on to elevate the offense is false)
Ex parte Saucedo, 576 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (concurring opinion critiques Mable and argues ignorance of unknown facts does not render pleas involuntary)
Ex parte Warfield, 618 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (concurring opinion reiterates view that Mable should be overruled)
Ex parte Palmberg, 491 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (plea voluntariness analysis: knowing ignorance of facts should not automatically invalidate plea)
State v. Wilson, 324 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (due-process theory permitting relief when new facts show a defendant is guilty only of a lesser offense)