Youkers, William Scott v. State, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6054

Youkers was on parole for tampering with evidence when indicted for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend.
He pled guilty to the assault under a plea agreement sentencing him to ten years with five suspended and a $500 fine.
State moved to revoke supervision for methamphetamine use, failed urinalyses, reporting failures, and unpaid fees.
Youkers offered an open plea of true to the revocation allegations and sought reinstatement of supervision.
Judge sentenced Youkers to eight years in prison and denied a motion for new trial, prompting this appeal.
This appeal raises claims of judicial bias, ineffective assistance of counsel due to mail delays, privilege waiver issues, and court‑appointed attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial bias from Facebook friendship	Youkers alleges actual/apparent bias due to judge’s Facebook friendship with girlfriend’s father.	State argues insufficient context; relationship limited, no bias proven.	No abuse of discretion; no reversible bias shown.
Prejudice from email communications by probation officer	Emails showing concern about Youkers show predetermined sentence.	Record insufficient to prove judge relied on these emails; timely disclosure.	No reversible error; no proof of prejudice.
Ineffective assistance due to mail delay in delivering letter about plea offer	Delay prevented awareness of plea offers; would have altered conduct.	Attorney informed Youkers of offers; no ineffective assistance proven.	No reversible error; no substantial prejudice shown.
Attorney‑client privilege used to block contents of letter as basis for new trial	Privilege prevented showing letter contents could change outcome.	Privilege not waived by raising ineffectiveness; cannot rely on privilege to prove ineffectiveness.	Privilege was not the basis to deny relief; but record insufficient to show ineffective assistance.
Attorney fees assessed against indigent defendant	Trial court wrongly taxed court‑appointed counsel fees as costs.	No material change in resources; indigence presumed to continue.	We modify judgment to delete attorney‑fee assessment.

Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (ex parte communications and judicial impartiality concerns from ex parte context)
Erskine v. Baker, 22 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000) (ex parte communications and impartiality analysis)
Gaal v. State, 332 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (bias appearance and recusal standards; impartiality)
Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (presumption of correctness; bias challenges require clear demonstrating of error)
Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for ineffective assistance and plea offers; later overruled on other grounds)
Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1982) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel; prohibited government interference with attorney access)
Turner v. State, 241 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. Crim. App. 1922) (right to counsel when detained by law enforcement)