Opinion issued October 21, 2004
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-04-01047-CR
____________
IN RE CHARLES LEE GRABLE, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Charles Lee Grable, requests that this Court compel respondent to “require the State of Texas in cause [No.] 764539 to disclose on the record its use of threats of additional charges against relator and his wife to induce a guilty plea.” Relator also filed a motion to proceed as a pauper. The motion is granted. However, we deny the petition.
According to his petition, relator received a letter from his counsel, Dick DeGuerin, in January 1998 that gave him the following options: accept the State’s agreement and plead no contest to indecency with a child, or persist in his plea of not guilty. A copy of the letter is attached to the petition as an exhibit. According to the letter, the State’s agreement was not to charge relator with the offense of family violence/assault (in which relator’s wife contacted the authorities) and not to charge relator’s wife with the offense of retaliation. Relator signed the bottom of the letter, agreeing to accept the State’s proposal and enter a plea. Relator pleaded guilty on April 3, 1998. A presentence investigation report was prepared, and the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placing relator on community supervision for five years.
Relator now alleges that the State did not disclose the entire plea bargain agreement to the trial court when relator entered his guilty plea. Relator does not allege that the State failed to keep its part of the agreement. A presentence investigation report was prepared, and relator received deferred adjudication community supervision, as he requested. Relator does not allege that the State prosecuted him or his wife for the family violence or retaliation incidents. Relator does not allege that he did not receive precisely what he bargained for.
A fair reading of relator’s petition leads to the conclusion that relator is under the mistaken impression that the State’s plea offer constituted prosecutorial misconduct. There was nothing improper about the State’s plea offer as it was described in relator’s petition. In Watson v. State, 760 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988, pet. ref’d), the Seventh Court of Appeals explained the rule well:
In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 98 S. Ct. 663, 54 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1978), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit a prosecutor from carrying out a threat, made during plea negotiations, that additional charges arising out of the same criminal episode would be brought against the defendant if he refused to plead guilty to the offense with which he was originally charged. The court held that the element of prosecutorial vindictiveness was not present where the defendant was free to accept or reject the prosecutor's offer. The Court went on to say:
For just as a prosecutor may forego legitimate charges already brought in an effort to save the time and expense of trial, a prosecutor may file additional charges if an initial expectation that a defendant would plead guilty to lesser charges proves unfounded.
457 U.S. at 381, 102 S. Ct. at 2492-2493.
In Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the State’s agreement to bar prosecution of another felony charge constituted a plea bargain within the meaning of Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
Relator alleges in his petition that respondent has a mandatory duty to enter all material details of a plea agreement into the official court records. He relies on Article 26.13(a)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that requires a trial court to “inquire as to the existence of any plea bargaining agreements.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(2) (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2004-2005) (emphasis added). Relator does not allege that respondent failed to inquire. Relator cites no authority that mandates a trial court to enter all material details of a plea agreement into the official court records.
Because the State’s plea offer was not improper and because relator has cited to no authority that imposes a ministerial duty on respondent to enter the details of the plea bargain agreement in the official district court records, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes and Alcala.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).