Williams, James Earl, PD-1124-15

In 1998 Williams was indicted for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault; in 2002 he pleaded guilty to those charges under a plea colloquy that recited the State would recommend 15 years and “refuse prosecution of any other case in which the State has notice — unfiled cases.”
The plea hearing transcript, signed plea documents, defense counsel (Layman), and prosecutor (Parker) were all present on the record at the 2002 plea.
In 2012 Williams was indicted for the 1998 murder of Darren Lang — a matter the parties acknowledge the State had investigative reports and had noticed before 2002.
At a pretrial hearing Williams moved to dismiss the murder indictment as covered by the 2002 plea agreement; the State submitted affidavits from Parker and Layman asserting the murder was not part of the deal.
The trial court denied dismissal. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed, finding at minimum an ambiguity about whether the plea covered this particular unfiled murder and relying on extrinsic affidavits; Chief Justice Gray dissented, concluding the plea language was unambiguous and required dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2002 plea agreement bars prosecution of the 1998 murder that the State had notice of	Williams: the plea language unambiguously promised the State would "refuse prosecution of any other case in which the State has notice — unfiled cases," which includes the murder; specific performance (dismissal) is required	State: the written plea documents do not reference the murder and the parties did not intend the murder to be included; extrinsic affidavits show ambiguity and the intent excluded the murder	Court of Appeals: affirmed denial of dismissal — phrase was at least ambiguous; extrinsic affidavits support that murder was not included. Chief Justice Gray dissented, finding no ambiguity and that the murder was covered and should have been dismissed

Alazarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plea colloquy and written plea used to determine scope of agreement)
Ex parte Deleon, 400 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. Crim. App.) (formal plea record can rebut boilerplate plea form)
Ex parte Moussazadeh, 64 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App.) (courts look to written plea agreement and plea hearing to determine parties’ obligations)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (government must honor plea promises; remedy may include specific performance)
Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1984) (defendant entitled to enforcement of plea agreements subject to practicality)
United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir.) (plea agreements construed against the government)
Washington v. State, 559 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. Crim. App.) (post-acceptance testimony cannot be used to alter plea terms)