1 101§1~0 03100/ 119 10 119 lN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS M©YB©N HDEONBE‘© CAUSE-75, 937-07, WR-75, 937-06, WR-75, 937-08 @ATE :=-§=; 'I`R CT 5617, 5593, 5591-A STATE OF TEXAS 1 RECEIVED lN - CGURT OF CRlMlNAL APPEALS V. NUV 04 2015 JAMES ALLEN PELLOAT, APPELLANT PRO SE Abet Acosta, Clerk MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FBOM DECISION RENDERED IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Now comes Appellant, Jarnes Allen Pelloat, in the above cause(s) to request reconsideration from this court of the decision rendered on 8/14/2015. ln support of this reconsideration, the Appellant submits the following: l Appellant made every effort available to him to follow the proper procedure and has shown due diligence to ensure as best he could his statutory right to file his amended 1107 was protected. Once he received all of the supplemental records from Newton County that were filed in this original l'107, he found two pieces of new evidence that he had not seen or knew of prior to trial. These pieces of evidence were (1) the transcripts from his day in court,' March 23, 2005, and (2) a finding of facts and conclusion of law. A copy of these two new items of evidence is included as exhibits. In June of 2012, he filed his amended 1107 with Bree Allen, Newton CountyMDistn`ct Clerk. He periodically sent letters alter he submitted his amended 1107 to Ms. Allen asking about the status. Two copies of such letters are included-in this motion as an exhibit. He never received a \ response from Ms. Allen in 2013. He was diagnosed with state 3 prostate cancer and began receiving treatment via surgical removal and radiation treatment Upon the completion of his hospitalization and therapy of 6 weeks from January to March 2015, he immediately flled a motion with the judge in his case to have the Distn`ct Clerk process his amended 1107. The District Clerk never processed his 1107 and merely kept the motion un-iiled and on moot status. This prejudiced his due process right and access to the courts t and the rules of the criminal court of appeals procedure. This non-compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure Rule 1107 also severely prejudiced his access to the courts. |l=l The first piece of new evidence he found in the supplemental findings of facts and conclusions of law from Newton County dated September 26, 2011, the District Attorney stated that “His attorney knew about the enactment of September l, 2003, for P.C. 21.12” on item number 12. This meant that his attorney, William l\/Iorian, knew of cause No(s) 5594 and 5618 which both are deemed as ex-post facto law in the United States and the Texas Constitution. The attorney was also aware that Appellant was being wrongfully convicted and sent to prison. By withholding such information nom Appellant, his counsel was ineffective and incompetent See Ex Pal;g Moussazadeh 361 sw 3d 648. 'I`he withholding of such important facts by Appellant's lawyer and the District Attorney made his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntary and tainted the entire judicial process. ' m \Vith the two, possibly three, illegal P.Cl 21.12 charges, a known charge on an invalid indictment 5617, a known charge 5594 where the victim lied about the date (where nothing happened until his 17"‘ birthday) that would invalidate the charge because of the conflict that the alleged crime occurred. If the court ruled against the alleged date, Appellant would have been convicted of only one of the six charges thus making the outcome totally different and proving the second prong of Strickland v. Washington and items mention in I, lI, and III proving the first prong of Strickland. m In January 2005, Appellant was indicted (see indictment 5617) for Aggravated Sexual Assault that allegedly occurred on May l, 2001 . Through school documents, the attorney proved that Appellant had not been hired to teach in Newton ISD. The day of the plea bargain conference, District Attorney Lewis stated “that all they had to do was change the last number in the year from 2001 to 2002 and that charge would still be valid.” The Appellant attempted to express to the District Attorney while at the conference that even with the date changed from 2001 to 2002, it would still be wrong. Following the ` conference Appellant told his attorney, Mr. Morian, that nothing happened.until much later in the summer. The record indicates the date of birth of the alleged victim and the sex between Appellant and the victim had to occur prior to June ll, 2002. Appellant stated that the sex occurred much later in the summer and this should have made Mr. Morian aware that indictment 5617 was invalid. The District Attorney lowered the charge h‘om Aggravated Sexual Assault to Sexual Assault. "l`his action extended the statute of limitations for 20 years more. (See Judgment for lowering charge.) This lowering was done without judicial knowledge and without Appellant's knowledge since no such- arrangements were discussed at Appellant's plea bargain conference The changing of the date and lowering of the charge deprived Appellant of a right given to him in the United States and Texas Constitution On March 23, 2005, Appellant appeared before the Honorable Judge Monte Lawlis for acceptance of Appellant's plea bargain and sentencing Appellant's attorney, Mr. Morian, questioned the lowering of cause 5617 from Aggravated Sexual Assault to Sexual Assault to make clear that it was lowered as a lesser included offense (see trial transcripts). The District Attorney stated, “Yes, it was lowered as a lesser included crime and it was plainly written on the judgments.” The judgments at no time show a “lesser included crime” showing that the District Attorney openly committed perjury by consciously lying concerning the lesser included crime. PRAYER Appellant, James Allen Pelloat, prays this Honorable Court will accept this Motion for Reconsideration and bring this cause back before the court for proper redress. Humbly submitted, QBWMQM Jarnes Allen Pelloat TDCJ # 1289716 CT Terrell Unit (R-3) 1300 FM 655 .Rosharon, Texas 775 83-8609 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l, James Allen Pelloat, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Motion for Reconsideration has been furnished via US Postal Services to the following: Abel Acosta, Clerk §c.»~\w ®$L§U/\ @M The Court of _Criminal Appeals PO Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Bree Allen, District Clerk lA Judicial Court PO Box 535 Newton, TX 75 966 CAUSE NOS. 5591, 5593, 5594 & 5617 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. l-A JUDICIAL DISTRICT ***** JAMES ALLEN PELLOAT NEWTON COUNTY, TEXAS PLEA On March 24, 2005 the following proceedings were had in the l-A Judicial 1 § District Court of Newton County, Texas: ` A;£Mm oumx ___ @l\=EB :P ~ M§ OCT 192011v BR E ALLE:'N D rk, n County. Texas By ’ \ "\\\`\c'.;\%'\~.. CO. /"// l § \ . ~~~~~ .O 2 "` Q.o' ',&/’: x iii §;§ § E;é'.’. ~.. ‘X"\\: : '//,O ‘ /{"""°i"'?"- ‘“¢g'm“gw::&°u:$&?& 0 R l G |N AL $s§,~¢.-~¢¢¢¢?";Z_ alma umw iam m APPEARANCES FOR THE STATE: MR. A.W. DAVIS DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEWTON, TEXAS ~ FOR THE DEFENDANT: MR.WILLIAM MORIAN SEALE, STOVER & BISBEY JASPER, TEXAS n¢¢, ..... THE JUDGE: Court come to order. Cause No. 5591, 5593, 5594, 5617; The State vs. James Allen Pelloat, MR. DAVIS: The State’s Ready, Your Honor. MR. MORIAN: Defendant’s ready, Your Honor. _ THE IUDGE: All right Do you wish to have the indictments read? MR. MORIAN: No, Your Honor. We’ll waive the reading. THE IUDGE: ls -- is the defendant the same person named in each indictment and is his name spelled correctly? MR. MORIAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE JUDGE: All right, at this time I’d ask the Defendant to stand. THE DEFENDANT: (Stands). THE JUDGE: Do you plead guilty or not guilty to the indictments in each of the cases I just named? THE DEFENDANT: The ones you just named, sir, I plead guilty to, yes, sir. THE JUDGE: Before l can accept your plea of guilty I have to understand several things First of all, l want to know if you have understood all of the papers that you have signed? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE IUDGE: And did you voluntarily sign these papers? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE .TUDGE: Are you entering this plea of guilty freely and voluntarily? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. \\\\\\\\lllll;,,,l// THE JUDGE: In each cas ? \\\\\` ’//,,, . ° s {-_,\P` ..... C_`OO Q . ' . THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, in each case. § -£\ "»: § 2 :' '= § § \'é'. _ : m § : '. ‘~ .' srs ’/,/,O ' ......... »<(/§ ’//’/l CUU NT`{ \‘\\\\\\\` // "'//nm\\\\\\“ THE JUDGE: All right, I will accept the pleas of guilty in Cause No. 5591, 5593, 5594, and 5617. The state may present the evidence and the -~ any recommendation MR DAVIS: Thank you, your Honor. The first case that we’re going to present is 5591, The charge is improper relationship of an educator with a student The defendant was arrested in this case on November the 7th of 2004 and indicted December the 6th of 2004. There has been plea bargaining in the case. Among the other things that have been agreed to in the plea bargaining, is that there’s a judicial confession and an agreement that the evidence in the case may be summarized orally. And it’s further agreed that the State witnesses and other evidence are available and informally presented to show that James Allen Pellcoat - Pelloat, the defendant, on or about the date alleged in the indictment, prior to the presentment of the indictment in Newton County, Texas, did intentionally or knowingly commit the acts described in the indictment upon the victim, who was at the time younger than 17 years. ` ' - ' I’d ask you, Your Honor, to take judicial notice of all the papers on file in the case, and in particular, the three page guilty plea memorandum that’s signed by the defendant, by his attorney, by me, and by Your Honor; the six page written plea admonish -- admonishments document which also includes the various waivers of the defendant, a judicial confession signed by the defendant; along with ` signatures of the defendant, his attorney, my signature, and yours. And I’d particularly ask that you take judicial notice of the two judicial confessions, one on page 5 ofthe written plea admonishments, and one on page 2 of the - written plea mem -- the guilty plea memorandum Both judicial confessions are in writing and sworn to under oath by the defendant before the district clerk. Arter Your Honor has finished disposing of the case, at some point in this proceeding there are victims and victim’s family that wish to address the defendant THE IUDGE: All right Mr. Morian, is this the agreement in 55 1- MK DAVIS: 5591. THE JUDGE: 5591. If you would recite that - g MR. MORIAN: Judge, these -- these --the plea recommendation is _ basically to dispose of all cases at the same time, and there’s going -- and that plea recommendation is that there’s going to be a dismissal of one of the charges; so, altogether collectively those are going to -~ that’s how it’s been presented to me. THE JUDGE: 20 years? Yeah. MR. MORIAN: Yes, sir. THE JUDGE: Is this the agreement? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE JUDGE: Mr. Morian', is this the record in all of the cases? Have - have you had time to discuss these papers with your client and go over the papers? MR. MORIAN: Yes, Your Honor, l have, and even today we’ve - of course, as you know, we were supposed to have gotten started at 2:00 o’clock; and I’ve spent quite a bit of time c . with him since then going over the plea papers as well, and explaining it to him. He does understand what we’re doing today. THE JUDGE: All right Mr. Pelloat, you understand that I’ve set out all of the warnings and information in writing, and you have 1 had a chance to study that and go over that; is that correct? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE JUDGE: rn an cases? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE JUDGE: What I’m going to do, I will take each case separately and at the conclusion of each case then I will give anyone the opportunity at that time to make an impact statement, and we’ll wait until we finish all of the cases. MR. DAVIS: All right Your Honor, at this time maybe it would be appropriate for the record if I went ahead and just stated the plea bargain as the State understands it and hopefully gs\g\§\\\nuun,,”/ \ \CT /’///, 1 defendant understands - $~\`Qx)/ Cause Number 5591 - improper Relationshlp Between Educator_ and Student / § Gausg,_Number..5592 -_:.Aggravated 'Sexcral'lAssault-."~- * » alia » Cause Number 5593 - Seie\ '\°;; _ `\’)c> tx \BCO "i"r“r\ `Mi%‘§ Roa\a rs./LIDQTQ>A e$ -. W`) 58(5 % ‘?L‘L\Z ®L\.`E el ‘®E v~>"p a §e\)i~\'(v\ D\‘->'537` §DU Neoe<¢s>} ’Y%~m'l=`-`m 43 w OQ\%\NFW \\€>”`i, 1 \/\g`.,°\_,; 'N\A§\ €">'~Q<`-€: \"K ‘\S Q>:\:>cc;e\\)r=v \\ §'>-0%‘> ve "<\e~.=` DS§'Q`\¢\ t;»\-»¢m‘\n>_c§ ease '\>n`: \>\s:e '-\ SE\ w'\.>*r*\'(’e"v`"t>\ §§ QA\\S iv “"§C\ reed ‘\_\ ‘A<>J? ‘<’\\~~ae \<\¢~> gem * ’<\v?,~<) \*\ \S ‘>E.N"\ ’\'O ‘\'\X€ C?>\l't(\ 633 .Ce_\m\:~>i\\' AQQBi\W-'=` C,ov\.»a \‘\I‘>V \H~”Ee~>o€‘<) \\O"\ \"7 No\_,u M@\QY,\ ~\; ’\¢< Wi\__i"‘(%{-_ $E.~v< se ae\¢e_ CS\)Q_‘\ e\e C~i"~\<*\\rwsm Q\~PQ'Y`-`v\\-‘* § '\’\e>~e°\‘~» \/\M) `\$ec\ `\-‘>~)\\ \\\:\.r~, %\ \\‘; L!>.(L‘{i\_v\ 58 wm @®asa\ 04 3 ’ L\, _ _ sewage go D\;\§'¢;\e\ Cl-EO~Y~ P.o. Oyo~,` %'2§ § (\\5 amos ’Ye~u~e q ZQ\W @E'ae~ §"\s. '®L\_%r§ § § v § §. 30 \°A ‘“\P\» \?§n_€~p \l>w\=`e~<) M~P\°'\ .¢ M\ OQ\&H`».». \\E>"? , l § ~ § ®§'.Q¢e \§ '\S '\=% cwva \\ %<> § ` b\ v _ §§'.~M >~1`= \>~ee '-\ ~J`o-~~\§\'t as - o eeo -\-\ eeoa _ ‘<`e~r-e x\ \e m ao€>s-: '\ cas T\ webb w`-,v\N~ee>oex> \c)"\ \ NQW. mo o »\<. ~<~ =<\~e. Cb\)o~'\§ eve C<‘§~\r'\\~ad evans (z \-»§\n\) §‘€<,c_,\_ `*\<>\)-<\ \\\:\_`i'~5 \ W@ "`i" o ecmag f i_)_<>e\`\ \°c\>i@.°\'i `i la `§<<>`\ceecm s mm \)~:o ct \\\ \\\ \“>c \ \ \S\Ot> rim \QC)£) ()\c>'§ erectan Ti»>< i\Q 5a QD©\\& i\i,\.i=» § NE va To w Co vee'\zv\' § \€'f?)&<_i§ CL<~>-i-¢~zi~> T\'a~f: ’>`,‘§Ye~‘\\)_s cfc m»\. A\ce~ewfbe~¢> \'\O"l \FQCL§¢'~\ "T\f\ C"\ "‘\"C> \i j er:\\, \`:‘0 §¢=\~o 5 i‘\_\"-Jq O _f‘° § §§:;\>¥.\ \§\§) '§3¢>\‘% § tro esa eo ?S"\ "PsagL \ €\§>`F<:agjn\“e?`itbw aec »\‘e»\»: ` , §~'\\;O~‘=~ P\"\ 1_"\`~ e<-\ °3> §§§§twog@a,%e§%.w_;\sap¢i¢w£i§;; §er»eq ”Trvioc~,i=~mea;»=t bee ac r\c,r:§ C)ig_;\"§ §§ "\’i~i\»; N>r;éi<)_§s_ § ceased esa C<=t.~.v…»~a\s i\):m~.\ Cm,`ai' S_\¢_,;»,~r er »i~¢\ 9 151 ‘t\ erie @:`i:s.@a~'o ana '**r‘i\ \< ""i» V,il\a.£a\re’$fx _r%'\ K\Jr 'q§’éj- L\\ »~ );5~§¢ -\'< ;.e~ eeee '/”"“¢z~',z~"~ Ex Parte Moussazadeh, 361 S.W. 3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ( 11 PAGES ) _ \/\/e“§tlév\/, 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. ` Ex parte Max MOUSSAZADEH, Applicant. NOS. AP~76,439,-AP-74,185. Feb.15, 2012. Backgrolind: After pleading guilty to murder, and after his murder conviction was affirmed on appeal, 962 S.W.Zd 261, applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that his mistaken understanding of parole eligibility based on misinformation coun- sel conveyed to him rendered his guilty plea invol- untary The 232nd District Court, Harris County, A. D. Azios, J., entered findings of fact supporting relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 64 S; W. 3d 404, denied relief. Applicant filed subsequent habeas`applicafion, and a suggestion for reconsideri- ation asking the Court of Criminal Appeals, on its own motion, to reconsider its denial of initial : habeas application Holdings: The Court of Criminal Appeals, Johnson ,J., held that: `(l) it would reconsider, on its own initiative, ap- plicant' s initial habeas application; ` (2) question of whether parole eligibility forms an affirmative part or essential element of the plea agreement is not determinative of court's deficient performance inquiry under l.'S`/r_ickland; abrogating, Ex parte Evans, 690 S.W.'Zd 274; ` (3) counsel's misin`formation"to defendant as to his parole eligibility constituted deficient performance; and (4) counsel’s error prejudiced defendant and thus ' WaS ln€ff€€th€ aSSlStanC€. Relief granted upon reconsideration Kellcr, P.J., concurred in judgment,'with opin-_,` ion.' West` Headnotes ` © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim yt"o Orig. US Gov. Works. Cases Page l [l],Habeas Corpus 197 €>=9899 197 Habeas Corpus l ' b 1971V Operation and Effect of Determination; Res Judicata; Successive Proceedings. 197k899 k. Dismissal or hearing on success- ive petitions; evidence Most Cited Cases Court of` Criminal Appeals would reconsider, on its own initiative, applicant‘s initial application for writ of habeas corpus, which the Court had pre- viously denied, and, thus, would dismiss applicant‘s subsequent habeas application. Rules App.Proc., Rule 79.2(d). ' 121 Haiié"as' corpus 197 <>=2894.1 197 Habeas Corpus 1971V Operation and Effect of Deterrnination;_ Res Judicata; Successive Proceedings 197k894 Refusal to Discharge; Subsequent . Applications; Prejudice 1971<894'11 k. rn general. Most Cited ` An initial application for a Writ of habeas cor- 4 pus seeking an out- of- time appeal does not consti- tute a challenge to the conviction and does not bar subsequent writ applications »~4 ' 131 Criminal Law 110 @273.1(31 1 10 Criminal Law' 110Xv Pleas 1101<272 Plea of Ginlty ' l 10k273 l Voluntary Character l 101<2731(3) k. Effect ofillegal deten- tion or violation of constitutional rights; illegally acquired evidence MostCited Cases - l Counsels advice can provide assistance so in- effective that it renders a guilty plea involuntary. U. S. C. A. Const. Amcnd-. 6. [4] Criminal Law 110 @273.1(3)` z ~ 1 ) 110 Criminal Law ' "... '1 IOXV Pleas 361 s.w.3d 684 (cire as; 361 s.w.sd 684) ‘ 110k272 Plea of Guilty l 10k273.l Voluntary Character l lOk273.1(3) k. Effect of illegal deten- tion or violation of constitutional 'rights; illegally acquired evidence Most Cited Cases A guilty plea is not knowing or voluntary if made as a result of ineffective assistance of coun- sel. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. [5] Criminal Law 110 6`/79273.1(3) 110 Criminal Law l lOXV Pleas l 110k272 Plea of Guilty l 10k273.l Voluntary Character 110k273.1(3) k. Effect ofillegal deten- tion or violation of constitutional rights; illegally acquired evidence Most Cited Cases A defendant's decision to plead guilty when based upon erroneous advice of counsel is not done voluntarily and knowingly. [6] Pardon and Parole 284 @42.1 284 Pardon and Parole 28411 Parole ' 284k42 Constitutional and Statutory Provi- sions 2841<42.1 k. ln general. Most Cited Cases Prisons 310 @248 310 Prisons 31011 Prisoners and Inmates 31011(F) Duration of Confinement 310k248 k. Conditional release; com- munity placement Most Cited Cases The statute in effect when the holding offense is committed determines an inmate's eligibility for release on mandatory supervision or parole. [7]Pa1:d0n and Parole 284 W48.1 284 Pardon and Parole 28411 Parole _284k48 Eligibility for Parole or Parole Con- sideration Page 2 284’k48.1 k. ln general. Most Cited Cases Parole eligibility requirements are direct con- sequences ofa guilty plea because they are a defin- ite and largely automatic result ofa guilty plea. [81 Pardon and Parme 284 exam 284 Pardon and Parole 28411 Parole 284k45 Authority or Duty to Grant»Parole' or Parole Consideration 284k47 k. Discretionary nature. Most Cited Cases Parole attainment is not governed by statute , . and is granted at the discretion ofthe parole board. [9] Constitu‘tional Law 92 @2789 92 Constitutional Law a 92XX111 Ex Post Facto Prohibitions 92XX111(_A) Constitutional Prohibitions in General 92k2789 k. Penal laws in general. Most Cited Cases Constitutional Law 92 €;>2790 92 Constitutional Law 92XX111 Ex Post Facto Prohibitions 92XX111(A) Constitutional Prohibitions in General 92k2790 k. Punishment in general. Most Cited Cases l A law that changes the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed is an unconsti-, tutional ex post facto law only if it inflicts a greater punishment than did the previous law. 'J'U.S.C.A. Const. Ai-r. 1,§ 10,<;1. 1. ` 4 [10] Constitutional Law 92 6292789 92 Constitutional Law 92XX111 Ex Post Facto Prohibitions 92XXIII(_A) Constitutional Prohibitions in General , 92k2789 k. Penal laws in general. Most Cited Cases ©~2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to'Orig. US Gov. Works. 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) 1 10k272 Plea of Guilty l 10k273.1 Voluntary Character 110k273.1(3) k. Effect of illegal deten- tion or violation of constitutional rights; illegally acquired evidence Most Cited Cases A guilty plea is not knowing or voluntary if made as a result of ineffective assistance of coun- sel. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. 151 Criminal Law 110 ©=:>273.1(3) 110 Criminal Law 1 lOXV Pleas 110k272 Plea of Guilty l 10k273.1 Voluntary Character 110k273.1(3) k. Effect ofillegal deten- tion or violation of constitutional rights; illegally acquired evidence Most Cited Cases A defendant‘s decision to plead guilty when based upon erroneous advice of counsel is not done voluntarily and knowingly. '[6] Pardon and Parole 284 €=542.1 284 Pardon and Parole 28411 Parole 284k42 Constitutional and Statutory Provi- sions 284k42.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Prtsons` 310 emma 310 Prisons 31011 Prisoners and Inmates 310II(F-) Duration of Confinement ‘ 310k248 k. Conditional release; com- munity placement Most Cited Cases The statute in effect when the holding offense is committed determines an inmate's eligibility for release on mandatory supervision or'parole. [7] Pardon and Parole 284 @48.1 284 Pardon and Parole, 28411 Parol‘e 284k48 Eligibility for Parole or Parole Con- v sideration ` cited cases Page 2 284k48.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Parole eligibility requirements are direct con-_ sequences of aiguilty plea because they are a defin- ite and largely automatic result of a guilty plea. |8] Pardon and Parole 284 €,:>47 284 Pardon and Parole 28411 Parole 284k45 Authority or Duty to Grant Parole or Parole Consideration 284k47 k. Discretionary nature Most ' Parole . attainment is not governed by statute ' and is granted at the discretion of_the parole board. [9] Constitutional Law 92 @2789 92 Constitutional Law 92XX111 Ex Post Facto Prohibitions ' - 92XX111(A) constitutional Prohibitions in General 92k2789 k. Penal laws in general. Most Cited Cases Constitutional Law 92 @2790 92 Constitutional Law 92XX111 Ex Post Facto Prohibitions 7 92XXIII(A) Constitutional Prohibitions in General f z 92k2790 k. Punishment rn general. Most Cited Cases v A law that changes the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed is an unconsti- tutional ex post facto law only if` it inflicts a greater punishment than did the previous law gU. S. CA. Const. Art 1 §10, cl. l. ` 1101 constitutional Law 92` <»>=:>2789 ' 92 Constitutional Law 92XX111EX Post Facto Prohibitions ` 1 92XXII_I(A) Constitutional Prohibitions in ` 'G_eneral 92k2789 k Penal laws in general Most Cited Cases ©2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) A statute which mitigates the rigor of the law in force at the time a crime was committed cannot be regarded as ex post facto with reference to that crime U.S,C.A. Const. Art. 1,§ 10, cl. l. [11] Criminal Law 110 €;>1920 1_10 Criminal_Law 110XXX1 Counsel l lOXXXl(C) Adequacy of Representation fl lOXXXI(C)Z Particular Cases and lssues 110k1920 k. Plea. Most Cited Cases The question of whether parole eligibility forms an affirmative part or essential element of the - plea agreement is not determinative of the court's deficient performance inquiry under the S/ric/c/cmd test for ineffective assistance of counsel; abrogat- ing, Ex parte Ev¢ms, 690 S.W.2d 274. U.S.C.A. Const./\mend. 6. [12| Habeas Corpus 197 @486(3) 197 Habeas Corpus 19711 Grounds for Relief; Illegality of Restraint 197II(B) Particular Defects and Authority for Detention in General 197k482 Counsel .. 197k486 Adequacy and Effectiveness of Counsel . , . 197k486(3) k. -Arraignment and plea. Most Cited Cases To obtain habeas corpus relief on`a claim ofin- voluntary plea based on counsel's erroneous advice, ‘ a habeas corpus applicant must meet both prongs of the St/'ick/and standard for ineffective assistance of - counsel, which are that counsel's performance was . -deficient,‘and that a probability exists, sufficient to ` undermine the court's confidence in the result, that the outcome would have been different but for counsel's deficient perforrnance; in_the context of involuntary plea, the “different-outcome” is choos- ing not to plead and instead choosing to go to trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. ' 1131-Cinnino1Law 110 @1882 © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 3 110 Criminal Law . , l lOXXXl Counsel 1 lOXXXl(:C) Adequacy of Representation 1 lOXXXI(C)l In General -' 1_101<1879 standard or Errootive As_, sistance in General - 110k1882 k. Deficient representa- tion in general Most Cited Cases Counsel's performance is deficient, as neces- sary to establish ineffective assistance, if it is shown to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonableness; the constitutionally appropriate level of reasonableness is defined by the practices and expectations of the legal community and pre- vailing professional norms therein. U._S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6. l [14] Criminal Law 110 ©@l920' l 10 Criminal Law l lOXXXl Counsel l lOXXXI(C) Adequacy of Representation 110XXX1(C)2 Particular Cases and Issues 110k1920 k. Plea. Most Cited Cases In situations in which the law is not clear, plea counsel should advise a client that pending criminal 1 charges may carry a risk of other serious con- sequences; however, when a serious consequence is truly clear, counsel has an equally clear duty to give correct advice, and both failure to provide correct ' information and providing incorrect information.vi- olate that duty. 1151 Criminal Law 110 @1920 1 10 Criminal Law 1 lOXXXI Counsel 1 lOXXXI(C) Adequacy of Representation . l lOXXXl(C)Z Particular.Cases and Issues 110k1920 k.'Plea. Most Cited Cases _ Defense counsel's misinformation to murder~ defendant as to his parole eligibility,-on which de- fendant relied in pleading guilty, constituted defi- cient performance, as element of ineffective assist- ance; parole eligibility requirements were pre- sumptively mandatory, and counsel provided incor- ua 5a ‘ " fi'\ e»r@tan'a? 1 361 S.W'.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) rect advice U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 42.18(8)(b)(3) (Repealed). [16] Criminal Law 110'€)=91920 1 10 Criminal Law ` 110xxx1 counsel v l lOXXXl(C) Adequacy of Representation 1 10XXX1(C)2 Particular Cases and Issues 110k1920 k. Plea. Most Cited Cases _ Defense counsel's misinformation to _murder defendant as to his parole eligibility, on which de- fendant relied in pleading guilty, prejudiced de`- fendant, and thus Was ineffective assistance; por- tion of defendant's sentence that had be served be- fore he became eligible for parole was double the portion that he was led to believe he had to serve, and defendant swore in an affidavit that he would not have pled guilty if he had known the actual time he would have to serve, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 42.18(8)(b)(3) (Repealed). ' ' *686 Randy Schaffer, Houston, for Appellant. Andrew J. Smith, Asst. D.A., Houston, Lisa C. McMinn, State’s Attorney, Au_stin, for State . . OPINION JOHNSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which>PRICE, WOMACK, KEASLER, HERVEY, COCHRAN, and`ALCALA, JJ.,joined. Applicant pled guilty to the offense of murder without an agreement for punishment The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced.applicant to seventy-five years' incarceration. On direct appeal, 7 the court of appeals affirmed the judgment‘of the trial court. Moussazadeh v. Slale, 962 S.W.Zd 261 (Tex.App.-Houston`[l4th Dist.]'1998, pet. ref`d) ( Moussazadeh 1 ). Thereafter, applicant filed an ap- plication for habeas corpus relief. In a published opinion, we denied relief because applicant “failed to prove, by al preponderance of the evidence, that his plea .was induced by a misunderstanding of the applicable parole law which formed an essential Page 4 element of the plea agreem'ent.” Ex par‘te Mous- sazudeh, 64 S.W.3d 404,1413 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) , cert denied 537 U.s. 813,`123 s.ct. 74, 154 L.Ed.2d 16 (2002) (' Moussazadeh 11, #- AP~74,185). Applicant filed a subsequent applica- tion for writ of habeas corpus, Moussazadeh III, # AP-_76,439, that *687 asserts that trial counsel's mistaken advice regarding parole eligibility rendered his plea involuntary. We ordered the sub- sequent application filed and set for submission After applicant filed the subsequent application, he also filed a suggestion for reconsideration that asks this Court, on its own motion, to reconsider its de- cision in Moussazadeh II. [1][2] This Court, on its own initiative,_may re- consider a prior denial of habeas corpus relief. TEX.R.APP. P. 79.2(d). We now reconsider, on our own initiative, the claim raised in applicant's second application for writ of habeas corpus, Mous~ sazadeh [1, and grant relief. Applicant’s sub- ` sequent application, Moussazadeh III, is dismissed FNl. Applicant’s first application sought an out-of-time appeal, which We granted. Ex parte Moussazadeh, No. AP-72,200 (Tex.Crim.App. delivered October 25, 1995) (not designated for publication). Such an initial application seeking an out- of-time appeal does not constitute a chal- lenge to the conviction and does not bar subsequent writ applications Ex parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d ~ 860, 861 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). In Moussazaa’eh II, we discussed hoi)v applic- ant, under indictment for a capital murder commit-' ted on September 12, 1993, pled guilty to the re- duced offense of murder without a sentencing agreement Applicant, a juvenile at the time of the offense, served as "‘look-out” while one of his three co-defendants shot and killed a man during a rob- y bery. Mouo-t`azadoh 11, 64 s.W.3d at 406_07. Whi`le initially rejecting the state's offer of a guilty plea to the lesser offense of murder, ultimately applicant agreed to plead guilty to murder without a punish- ©'2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) ` ment.agreement. The agreement included applic- ant's promise to. testify at a co-defendant's trial, which he did. Ia’. at 407_09. Duririg that-testimony, applicant indicated that he understood that, in pleading guilty to the murder offense and because of parole-eligibility laws', he was facing a signific- antly'lesser term of imprisonment than he` would have faced if convicted of capital murder. Id. at 408-09. After the co-defendant‘s trial ended, ap- plicant was sentenced to seventy-five.years' incar- ceration without a deadly-weapon finding. Id.l at 409. Applicant's claim in his previous writ applica- tion, Which we now reconsider, asserted that “counsel's gross misadvice regarding parole eligib- ility rendered applicant's guilty plea involuntary.” He argued that “the matter of parole eligibility was implicitly incorporated in [his] plea agreement.” He also argued that his “guilty plea was involuntary even if the matter of parole eligibility was not im- plicitly incorporated in the plea agreement.” We quote from our opinion in Moussazadeh']l. lt is quite possible that no one in this proceed- ing knew that the parole law had changed dramat- ically just ll days before this robbery-murder. Applicant’s parole eligibility is measured by the law in effect on the date'of the offense Under the law effective.until September 1, 1993, a person serving a life sentence for capital murder was not eligible for parole until serving a flat 35 years TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 42.18, § 8(b)(2). After September l, 1993,- that person was not eli- gible for parole until serving a flat 40 years TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 42.-18, § 8(b)(2)- (effective Sept. 1, 1993). Under the law effective until September 1, 1993, a person whose convic- tion included a deadly yveapon finding was not eligible for parole until he had served a flat one-j fourth of his sentence, up to a maximum of `15 years TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.`Art. 42.18, § 8(b)(3). After September 1, 1993, a`person whose conviction contained a deadly weapon finding was required`to~ serve a flat one-half *688_of the © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 5 sentence up to a maximum of 30 years. TEX.CODE CRIM.,PROC. Art. 42.18, § 8(b)(3) (effective Sept. 1, 1993). Under the law effective until September 1, 1993, a person convicted of murder (but whose conviction did not contain a deadly weapon finding) was eligible for parole when his good time plus flat time equaled one- quarter of the `sentence up to 15 years ' TEX.CODE_CRIM. PROC. Art. 42.18, § 8(b)(3). After September 1,'1993, a person convicted of murder was not eligible for parole until he had served one-half of his sentence or 30 years TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 42.18, '§ 8(b)(3) (effective Sept. 1, 1993). The affidavits submitted by both applicant and his trial counsel with his habeas application state that they did not know ofthese statutory changes Indeed, we may fairly infer from the record that the judge, prosecutor, and [the co-defendant's] counsel shared the same misunderstanding However, neither trial counsel's nor applicant's affidavits state that the prosecutor agreed to make applicant's parole eligibility a term or essential element of. the plea agreement ~There is no evid- ence that the prosecutor ever discussed any spe- cific term or particular percentage of the sentence that he believed applicant should or would serve in return for the prosecutor's dropping the charges from capital murder to straight murder. In sum, we are unable to find any evidence »that p_roves the prosecutor or judge caused applicant to plead guilty based upon an incorrect under- ` standing of Texas parole law. [Citation omitted.] Id. at 409-10. rn Mous.tozndeh-u, we held that a finding that parole eligibility formed an essential part of a plea agreement must be founded upon the express terms t of the written-plea-agreement itself, th_e formal re- cord at the plea hearing, or the written or testimoni- al evidence submitted by both the prosecution and ` the applicant`in a habeas proceeding Id. _at 412. We were “unable to conclude -..`. thatparole eligibility played any part, implicit or explicit,» in the plea ' antonio ~/ ~ , isn 19tle 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) agreement made between the prosecution and ap- plicant.” ]c/. at 413. We therefore “den[ied] applic- ant relief because he failed to' prove, by a pre- ponderance of the evidence, that his plea was in- duced by a misunderstanding of the applicable pa- role law which formed an essential element of the plea agreement ” lcl. Acknowledging our prior hold- ings that a guilty plea is not rendered involuntary simply because the defendant received and relied upon erroneous advice of counsel concerning parole eligibility, and that both parole eligibility and pa- role attainment are highly speculative future facts, we likewise rejected applicant's contention that his plea was involuntary regardless of whether the pa- role eligibility misinformation was implicitly incor- porated into the plea agreement. Id. at 413-_14. The circumstances surrounding applicant's con- viction are not in dispute Prior to applicant's plea, trial counsel advised applicant about his parole eli- gibility, and that advice was incorrect. As we stated in Mozissazadeh 1], “The affidavits submitted by both applicant and his trial counsel with his habeas application state that they did not know of these [recently effective] statutory changes [in the parole- eligibility_law]. Indeed, we may fairly infer from the record that the judge, prosecutor, and counsel » for [the co-defendant against whom applicant testi- fied] shared the same misunderstanding.” Mous- sazadeh II, 64 S.W.3d at 410. [3][4][5] Counsel's advice can provide assist- ance so ineffective that it renders a guilty plea in- voluntary. *689111'// v Loc/c_hart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S. Ct. 366, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1985) (quoting Mc- '_`Mann v. Richaidson. 397 U.8. 759, 771, 90 S.Ct. c 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); “voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel's advice ‘was within the range of competence demanded of attor- '~ neys in criminal cases’ ”). A guilty plea is not knowing or voluntary if made as a result of inef- fective assistance of counsel. Ex parte Burns, 60il `18.W.2d 370, 372 (Tcx.Crim.App.1980), A defend- ant's decision to plead guilty when based upon erro- neous advice of counsel is not done voluntarily and Page 6 l knowingly Ex parte Baltle, 817 S. W.2d 81, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) See also Ex par le Ha/ring- 10)1, 310 S W. 3d 452, 459 (Tex. Criin App 2010) (“When counsel's representation falls below this [ -Strickland] standard, it renders any resulting guilty plea involuntary.”). Applicant's initial application contended that “counsel's gross misadvice regarding parole eligib- ility rendered applicant's guilty plea involuntary,” “the matter of parole eligibility was implicitly in- corporated in [his] plea agreement,” and that his “plea agreement was involuntary even if the matter of parole eligibility was not implicitly incorporated in` the plea agreement.” Applicant now asks this Court to reconsider his application in light of Pa'- dilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. _-, 130 S.Ct. 1473, ,176 L.Ed.2d 284 (201;_0), and overrule our previous decisions in _Ex parte Evans, 690 S.W.2d 274 (Tex.Crim.App.1985`), and Moussazadeh II. The state contends that»Padi/la has no bearing upon the Court‘s disposition of applicant's claim j and that Ex parte Evans and Moussazadeh 11 are “still based upon scund logic regarding parole eli- gibility and parole attainment as being highly spec- ulative circumstances that does [sic] not render a guilty plea involuntary.” We conclude that both applicant and the state are partly correct: Paa'il/a is not applicable to the facts before us, and lour decisions in _Ex parte Evans and Moussazadeh ll were incorrect. We now dis- _ avow our prior decisions in 'E_r parte Evans and Moussazadeh ll to the extent that they (1) require ` parole-eligibility misinformation to form aan 'essen- tial part of the plea agreement in order to makea showing of.an involuntary plea that resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel,' based upon such misinformation and v(2) fail to appropriately recog- nize the distinction between parole eligibility and parole atlainmenl. ' [6] We`have previously held that, because of the extremely speculative nature of parole attain- ,ment, advice from counsel concerning parole does © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) not render a plea involuntary. Ex parte Evans, 690 S.W.2d at 279. However, Evans stated that, because “eligibility for parole is a fluctual [sic] societal de- cision; highly subject to change, t_p‘li'ca'nt must prove, by a preponderance of the evi‘d'i \ence_, that; paro'le eligibility was an affirmative part or essential element of the plea bargain Id. “ rd. at 278,§nanoop§?r This is an incorrect statement of the law. While the ' general eligibility rules for parole may change over time, the§"e_;igibility-rules"remainthe same for a"givfl; en conviction'. Likewise, an inmate who was eli- gible for mandatory release at the time of the of- y ~ fense remains eligible for mandatory release on that conviction, even if that offense subsequently be- comes eligible for only discretionary mandatory re- . lease “The statute in effect when the holding of- fense is committed determines an inmate's eligibil- ity for release on mandatory*690 supervision or pa-' role ”;?Ex--“ pat tea Thomps_on, '(Tex.Crim.App.2005)`f.; Evans held that, because pa- role attainment was speculative, its “legal import- ance on the subject of voluntariness of a guilty plea" should be “discounted.” 'Ex parte'Evans, 690 S.W.2d at 279', Then,_ based on its incorrect state- ment of law, Evans made an erroneous logical leap and applied the same standard to parole eligibility As a_ result, Evans held that erroneous advice as to either parole eligibility or parole attainment would not render a plea involuntary. Id. In Moussozadeh 11 we further conflated the concepts of eligibility and attainment FN2. .See also `Ex parte Tijaha_n, 781- l73-18.'W.~3d» 458,' 459' n ts.W.zd 291, 292_93 (_rex.Cnm.App.1989)_ (written` plea memorandum reflected that aepplicant would become eligible for parole consideration after having served one- fourth of sentence; habeas relief available when that-was not the law and terms of plea agreement were impossible to_fulfill). Although one can determine current parole e_li-. ‘ gibility with some degree of certainty, it is really parole attainment that is significant to a plea bar- gaining defendant.' It matters very little that a per-" Page 7 son is eligible for parole in one year on a ten year sentence if virtually no one is being paroled in less than seven or eight years on a ten year sen- tence It is for this reason that we have termed parole attainment “too speculative to warrant be- ing given effect upon” a defendant's guilty plea. 64 S.W.3d at 413, quoting Evans, supra. [7][8][9][10] Contrary to our prior decisions, there vare considerable concrete distinctions between parole attainment and parole eligibility Parole attainment is indeed highly speculative due to various factors associated with circumstances surrounding an individual prisoner's parole applica- tion, such as the prisoner's behavior in prison, the composition and attitude of the parole board, the identity and attitude of the governor, the population of the prison system, and regulations governing “good time.” S€e,Ex.pa):te Car-illo, 687 S.W.2d 320, 325 ('I`ex.Crim.App.l985) (Miller, .J.§ concurring). The question of parole eligibility, however, elicits a straightforward answer because an applicant's pa- role eligibility is determined by the law in effect on the date of the offense Ex parte Thompson, 173 S.W.3d at 459. The statutes that govern the punish- ment of a particular offense control the issue of pa- role eligibility and are not subject to alteration, ab- sent legislative amendrnent. Even in the event of a legislative amendment making a law more strin- gent, an applicant is subject only to the law govem- ing parole eligibility :at the time the offense was committed See Ex parte Alegria, 464 S.W.2d 868, 1 874-75 (Tex.Crim.App.l9711) (retroactive applica- - tion of parole statute that increased defendant's cu- . ymulati`on of years required for parole eligibility vi- '_olated ex post facto clauses of United States and Texas Constitutions). ' Parole-eligibility require- ments are direct consequences because they are a definite and largely automatic result of a guilty _ plea. See Mitschke v. State, 1_29 S.W.3d _130, 135_ (Tex Crim. App. 2004):' Parole attainment on the other hand, is not governed by statute and is gran- ted at the discretion of the parole bo'ard. ' FN3. A law that changes the punishment 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) for a crime after the crime has been com~ mitted is an unconstitutional ex post facto :law only if it inflicts a greater punishment than did the previous law. Ex parte Tate, 471 ' ` s.w.zd '404, 406 (Tex.Criiii.App.1971) ‘(op. on reh'g); Ex . parte Scott, 471 S.W.2d 54, 55-6 (Tex Crim. App. 1971). “[A] statute which mitigates the rigor of the law in force§ at g the time a crime was committed cannot be regarded as ex post facto with reference to that crime.” Rooney v. North Da/cota, 196 U.S. 319, 325, 25 S.Ct. 264, 49 L.Ed. 494 (1905). ' 1 On a claim of involuntary plea, the standard for the analysis of harm under the Strick/ana/ protocol as expressed in these cases may be stated generally as “but for the erroneous advice of counsel, the ap- plicant*69l would not have plead guilty.”'Ex parte Harringlon, 310 S.W.3d-at 458. See also Ex parte Mooa’y, 991 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Tex.Crim.App.l999) ‘ Ex parte Stephenson, 722 S.W.2d 426, 428 1 . (Tex.Crim.App.1987). [1 l] When deciding whether to accept or reject a plea offer, a defendant will likely consider the ac- tual minimum amount of time he will spend incar- cerated. In order to properly consider his options, a_ defendant needs accurate information about the law concerning parole eligibility. Although we continue to recognize the distinction between direct and col- lateral consequences, we now hold that the question of whether parole eligibility forms an affirmative part or essential element of the plea agreement is not determinative of this Court‘s deficient- -per- formance inquiry under Str icklana' [12] To obtain habeas corpus relief on a claim of involuntary plea, .an tapplicant_ must .meet both prongs of the Stric/clan¢l standards (1)`counsel‘s per- formance‘ was deficient; and (2) that a probability exists, sufficient to undermine our confidence in the result, that the outcome would have been different _ -but' for counsel['s] deficient performance.” Ex parte Whire,» 160 s.w.3d 46, 49 (Tex.€riin.App.2004). 111 Page 8 the context of involuntary plea, the “different out- come” is choosing not to plead and instead choos- ing to go to trial. [13][14] Counsel's performance is deficient if it is shown to have fallen below an objective standard " of reasonableness ]d. at 51; Strickland \_). Was/ting- ton 466 U S. 668, 687- 88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 »L Ed 2d 674 (1984). The constitutionally appropri- ate level of reasonableness is defined by»the prac- tices and expectations of the legal community and prevailing professional norms therein. Slrick/ana', supra, at 688, 104: S.Ct. 2052. ln situations in which the law is` not clear, counsel should-advise a client that pending-criminal charges may carry a risk of other serious§consequences. When a serious consequence is truly:clear, however, counsel has an equally clear duty to give correct advice. Both fail- ure to provide corredt information and proi/iding in- correct information violate that duty. [15] The terms of the relevant parole-eligibility statute are succinct:and clear with respect to the consequences of a guilty plea. Based upon the date in which the instant offense was ` committed, Tex Code Crim Proc art. 42. 18 § 8(b)(3) clearly and succinctly provided that‘ a person convicted of murder was not eligible for parole until he had served one-half of jhis sentence or thirty -years.” Mozis'stzzacleh II, supra, at 409. Applicant's counsel could have easily determined the applicable parole- eligibility requirements simply by reading the text of the statute. Instead, applicant's counsel failed to _ inform him of changes in the parole-eligibility stat- utes that essentially‘doubled the length of time he must serve before becoming eligible for parole. `The fact that the amendments took effect only eleven days before the offense 1s of no consequence . _FN4..Parole.eligibility is.not speculative .. In this cas'e,` parole eligibility was statutor- ' ily determined and, at the time of the plea, there was no speculation about those stat- utory terms. 7 Those terms of parole eligibil- ity were clear, succinct, and explicit It ap- pears that all parties involved were un- © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov.'Works. 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) aware that parole eligibility had changed significantly just a few days before the commission ofthe alleged offense The performance'of applicant's counsel was de- v ficient: the consequences of applicant's plea could have been easily determined by reading the applic- , able statute Parole-eligibility requirements are pre- sumpti'vely mandatory, and applicant's trial counsel provided '»incorrect advice We *692 conclude that applicant has sufficiently proved that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. [16] The portion of applicant's sentence that must`be served before he becomes eligible for pa- role was double the portion that he was led to be- lieve he must serve Based on applicant's affidavit of January 13, 1997, we also conclude that ap- plicant wE`)uld not have pled guilty if he had known the actual time he would have to serve, and thus prejudice is shown. We find that the habeas court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are suppor-' ted by the record and agree that relief should be granted. FN5. “1_-_1ad ‘Judge' Azios;; Mr. Jones, or Mr. Qogdelljitold`m'§ that a murder conviction would require me to serve aggravated time of one-half of my sentence, up to a maxim- _um of 30 years, even without a deadly weapon finding, I would not have accepted the plea bargain.” Accordingly, upon reconsideration, we grant relief. The judgment in this cause is hereby vacated, and-applicant is remanded to the custody of the Harris County Sheriff to answer the charges set out in the indictment `The trial court shall issue an ap- propriate bench warrant within ten days after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the trial court and to the Texas De- partment of Criminal Justice,§correctional institu- tions division ` KELLER; P.J., filed a concurring opinion. MEY- ERS, J., did not participate © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to orig.'Us Gov. works. .A‘-*ii@~"\fl‘ Page 9 KELLER, P.J., concurring. In overruling Ex parte Evans,F l the Court creates a new rule of constitutional law. Under Teague. with some exceptions, federal`courts may not announce or apply new rules of constitutional law on collateral review. The states are not bound by the Teague rule and may afford retroact- ive effect on collateral review in situations not al- lowed under Teague. Nevertheless, with -re- spect to the new Confrontation Claus_e holding ar- ticulated in Crawfora' v. Washington,- _ we ap- plied the rule in Teague`to bar retroactive applica- tion on habeas corpus. The Court does not con- duct a retroactivity analysis in this case, and 1 do not know its reason for making the new rule retro- active.'Has the Court abandoned Teague altogether in favor of its own retroactivity analysis? Does it intend to adhere.to Teague, but with state-created exceptions? Do any exceptions-articulated in Teague or state-created-apply in the present case? If the Court is going to overrule prior precedent on habeas review, as it does here, I believe that it should clearly explain how this fits into our retro- activity jurisprudence FNi. j 690 s.w.2d 274 ('l`ex.Crim.App.1985). l . FNZ. Teagz/e v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, `103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). FN3. Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008); Ex parte Lave, -257 S.W.3d 235, 237 & n. . 15 (Tex.Crim._App.2008). " FN4. 541 U.S. 36, 124 'S.Ct.,71354, 158 L'.Ed.2d 177j(2004). FNS. Lave, 257 s.w.3d a1`237; Ex pane ‘Keirh, 202 s.w.3d 767 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). There is an easier way to resolve this case During the plea colloquy, the trial judge was pre-l pared to make a deadly -'weapon finding, but the 01 s t £Aa~rg,se~¢` »'-‘ '~F\i:)il.»;= t 361 s.w.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 s.w.3d 684) - parties explained that the issue was to be left open for the judge to determine at punishment, which would be assessed after applicant testified against a co-defendant in accordance with the plea agree- ment. This_exp|anation was consistent with the parties agreeing *693 that applicant would have his chance, after cooperating with the State, to per- suade the trial judge to make \his ` time “non-aggravated," i.e.- subject to more generous pa- role-eligibility rules available to non-3g offenses. . But less than two weeks before the offense had been committed, the law had changed to treat murder as an “aggravated” offense for parole- eligibility purposes, regardless of whether there was a deadly-weapon finding. In its findings of fact on applicant's original habeas application, the habeas judge found that the prosecutor and the trial judge ratified defense counsel's misinformation about parole eligibility `fby attaching significance to the deadly weapon finding.” The habeas judge recommended that applicant be granted a new trial. FN6. See Ex parte Moussazadeh, 64 s.W.'sd 404, 408 ('rex.crim.App.zooi). FN7. see TEx.coDE cRIM. PRoc. art 42.12 § sg; rEx. oov'r CoDE § 508.14_5(0). FN8. Moussazadeh, 64 S.W.3d at 409. FN9. The habeas judge also found that ap- § pellant would not have pleaded guilty ab- sent the misinformation 'In our original opinion on applicant's habeas “'application, we declined to follow the habeas judge's finding, and her ultimate recommendation, because it required “too many inferences stacked upon each other” for the deferral of _the deadly y weapon issue "‘to support a finding that it was the parties' clear intention that parole eligibiliFt_y\J%as an essential element of the plea bargain.” We cited no authority for this “inference-stacking” holding, and thus it does not appear to be based upon an established.rule that we would have Page 10 to change Moreover, with regard to the advice giv- en in Evans, we said in that case: FN10. 1a 61413. FNi 1. See id. No overt sanctioning of this advice by the judge or the prosecutor appears in the record and it does, not appear to have been a part of the plea bargain. We realize that it is common for the'parties to play the guessing game of parole eligibility in plea negotiations Wedecline, however, to elev- 'ate this common`practice to the status of an ele- ment of the plea bargain without some further in- dication from the record evidencing that status. We conclude,-then, that we are not dealing with a broken or impossible plea bargain situation. a ` FN12. 690 s.w.2d 61277. Unlike in Evans, there was overt sanctioning of the attorney‘s advice by the judge and the prosec- utor, or at least the habeas court`could so rationally conclude, as it has:done Thus, we'simply misana- lyzed the issue under Ei)ans, and it is appropriate for us to reconsider the issue now.4 7 Further, since our original opinion in this case, we have decided Hoope)', where we indicated that inference stacking was not necessarily irrational and that we should ‘focus, not on whether inferences are being stacked, but simply on the rationality of the inferences in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence'to support a conviction. FN13.. §Ho_oper v. State, 214 S".W.3d 9, 16-`17 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). If it were ne- cessary to decide whether Hoope/"s'pro-, nouncement regarding inference stacking ` constituted a_new trule under _Teague, .I would hold that it does-not, because, re- gardless of the scope oft',l`exas's version of._ Teague’s proscription against announcing new constitutional rules of criminal pro- ' cedure on habeas, see Danfo/‘tli, supra, such `a proscription cannot apply to basic © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 361 S.W.3d 684 (Cite as: 361 S.W.3d 684) standards of habeas practice Otherwise a court could never change its procedures or standards on habeas. Finally, 1 would not hold, as the Court appears to do, that the simple failure to *694 convey ` information about parole eligibility renders a guilty plea involuntary We need not address whether counsel has an obligation to convey information about the parole consequences of a plea. 'In this case, it is enough to hold that, if counsel does con- vey this type of information, he must do so cor- rectly. Here, the information was incorrect. FN14. “Both failure to provide correct in- formation and providing incorrect informa- tion violate that duty[.]” Court‘s opinion at 691. Although 1 agree that applicant is entitled to a new trial, 1 do not join the Court‘s opinion. 1 concur in the Court‘s judgment ' Tex.Crim._App.,2012.' Ex Parte Moussazadeh 361 S.W.3d 684 ` END oF DoCUMr-;NT n Page ll ~::::1‘¢4\ No. ND 5591 (singie Counr) TRN 010 107 3208 THE srATE or TEXAS v. JAMES ALLEN PELLOAT, DEFENDANT ` ' §I_D_: TX § § § F`lLED FOR RECUIK’D IN THE l-A JUDICIAL range ALLEN DISTRICT coURT 01=:.`1’11511' 6 l NEWTON COUNTY;11 JUDGMENT oF CoNviCTIoN BY COURT; SENTENCE TO Institutional Division. TDCJ DATE or JUDGMENT; JUDGE -PRESIDING; ATTORNEY FoR THE srATE; ATTORNEY FoR THE DEFENDANT; LFE_NSE STATUTE FOR OFFENSE: 4 DEGREE OF OFFENSE: APPLICABLE PUNISHMENT RANGE (including enhancements, if any): DATE OF OFFENSE: CHARGING INSTRUMENT: TERMS OF PLEA AGREEMENT §IN DETAIle PLEA TO OFFENSE: PLEA TO ENHANCEMENT ' PARAGRAPH§ S ): VERDIC'I` FOR OFFENSE: FINDING ON ENHANCEMEN'I`: AFFIRMATIVE FINDING ON DEADLY WEAPON: OTHER AFFIRMATIVE SPECIAL FINDINGS: DA'I`E SEN'I`ENCE IMPOSED: PUNISHMENT AND PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: TIME CREDITED TO SENTENCE: March 24, 2005 Monte D. Lawlis A. W Davis, Jr. William S. Morian, Jr. lmproper Relationship Between an Educator and a Student Section 21.12, Penal Code Second Degree Felony Second Degree 2-20 yrs in prison/max $10,000 fine On or about November 7 , 2004. Indictment James Allen Pelloat will plead guilty to the followingi%zercases, all 2"" Degree Felonies: No. ND-599l, lmproper Relationship (21.12 P.C.); N.D-§S§%,-Sen-al-Assault-(%l-¢Ol-l-Fr€?)? ND-5593, Sexual Assault (21.011 P.C.); ND-5594 lmproper Relationship (21.12 P.C.); and ND-56l7 Sexual Assault (21.0|1 P.C.), reduced from Aggravated Sexual Assault (22.021 P.C.). Case No. ND-SG|S, lmproper Relationship (2|.12 P.C.) will be dismissed. The defendant will receive a sentence ol’ twenty (20) years on each of the Mrcases, with the sentence in case ' No. ND-5992 and the sentence in c se No. ND-5617 to run consecutively The sentences in the remaining cases are to run concurrently. Defendant will receive credit for time served in the Newton County Jail in the amount of 138 days. Guilty Not Applicable Guilty Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable March 24, 2005 Twenty (20) years in the lnstitutional Division-TDCJ, and _1§9 fine 138 days DSZ: Judgment of Conviction by Coun; Dircct Scntcnce, Cause No. ND 5591; Fage 1 of 3 Pagcs 2115 1001 211 13 2132 FiLED ron REcoao No. ND 5593 (single counc) TRN 010 107 3208 1105 1110 211 13 21 33 THE sTATE oF TEXAS v. § `JAMES ALLEN PELLOAT, DEFENDANT SI_D: TX DATE OF JUDGMENT: JUDGE PRESIDING: ` ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE: A'I'I`ORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT: OFFENSE: STATUTE FOR OFFENSE: DEGREE OF OFFENSE: APPLICABLE PUNISHMENT RANGE (including cnhancements, if any): DA'I`E OF OFFENSE: CHARGING lNSTRUMENL TERMS OF PLEA AGREEME-NT §IN 1DE'I`AIL): § PLEA TO OFFENSE: PLEA TO ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH(S ): VERDICT FOR OFFENSE: FINDING ON ENHANCEMENT: AFFIRMA'I`IVE FINDING ON DEADLY WEAPON: OTHER AFFIRMATIVE SPECIAL FINDINGS: 'DATE SENTENCE IMPOSED: PUNISHMENT AND PLACE OF CONFINI§MENT: 'I'IME CREDITED TO SENTENCE: COURT COSTS: IN THE 1-A JUDICIALL!“ w DISTRICT coURT orr . NEwToN COUNW;~"PE JUDGMENT oF CoNvICTIoN BY COURT; SENTENCE TO Institutional Division, TDCJ March 24, 2005 Monte D. Lawlis A. W Davis, Jr. William S, Morian, Jr. Sexual Assault Section 22.011, Penal Code Second Degree Felony Second Degree 2-20 yrs in prison/max 510,000 line November 7, 2004 indictment - fear James Allen Pelloat will plead guilty to the following cases, all 2"‘ Degree Felonies: No. ND-599l, lmproper Relationship (21.12 P.C.); , ND-5593, Sexual Assault (21.011 P.C.); ND-5594 improper Relationship (21.12 P.C.); and ND~5617 Sexual Assault (21.01| P.C.), reduced from Aggravated Sexual Assault (22.021 P.C.). Case No. ND-5618, lmproper Re|atlonship (21.12 P.C.) will be dismissed. Tlie defendant will receive a sentence of twenty (20) years on each of the 'cases, with the sentence in case No. ND-5992 and the sentence in case No. ND-5617 to run consecutively. The sentences in the remaining cases are to run concurrently. Defendant will receive credit for time b served in the Newton County Jail in the amount of 138 days Guilty Not Applicable Guilty ` . Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable March 24, 2005 Twenty (20) years in the Institutional Division-TDCJ, and M fme 138 days None DS2: Judgmcnt ofConviction by Coun; Direct Sentcnce, Cause No. ND 5593; Page l of 3 Pages 1 F'lLED`FOR RECORD No. ND 5594 (singie coum)§TRN 010 107 3208 ms MAR ZL, p 2: 33 THE srArE or rExAs ' § rN THE 1-A JUDICIAL ~ - ,11_1€11 v. § oisrchr couRT 01=,5;=..~..-?‘651 l 1171 JAMES.ALLr-;N PELLoAr, § NEwroN coUNrY, rs w _'_-g DEFENDANT - SI_D: TX JUDGMENT oF CoNvICTIoN BY CoURT; SENTENCE To Inscii`utionai Division, TDCJ' DATE OF JUDGMENT: JUDGE PRESIDING: A'I'I`ORNEY FOR THE STATE: ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT: OFFENSE: STATUTE FOR OFFENSE: DEGR.EE OF OFFENSE: APPLICABLE PUNISHMEN'I` RANGE (including enhancements, if any): . DATE OF OFFENSE: CHARGING INSTRUMENT: TERMS OF PLEA AGREEMENT §1_1\_1 DETAIL): PLEA To 0FFENSE: _PLEA To ENHANCEMENT -.. ., PARAGRAPH(s): vERDICT FOR oFFENSE: FINDING oN ENHANCEMENT: AFFIRMAHVE FINDING oN DEADLY ' WEAPoN: OTHER AFFIRMAT!vE sPECiAL Fmomos: DATE sENTENCE iMPOSED; PUNISHMENT AND PLACE oF MM 'I`IME CREDITED TO SENTENCE: March 24, 2005 Monte D. Lawlis A'. W Davis, Jr. William'S. Morian, Jr. lmproper Relationship Between an Educator and Student Section 21.12, Penal Code Second Degree Felony Second Degree 2-20 yrs in prison/max 510,000 fine On or about November 7, 2004. Indictment -f"uir James Allen Pelloat will plead guilty to the followinglivocases, all 2"d Degree Felonies: No. ND-599l, improper Relationship (21.12 P.C.); mud-Assault (21.01| P.C.); ND-5593, Sexual.Assault (21.011 P.C.); ND~5594 lmproper Relationship '(2|.12 P.C.); and ND-56l7 Sexual Assault (21.011 P.C.), reduced from Aggravated Sexual Assault (22.021 P.C.). Case No. ND-5618, improper Re|atlonshlp (21.|2 P.C.) will be dismissed. The defendant will receive a sentence of twenty (20) years on each of the “eases, with the sentence in case No. ND-5992 and the sentence in case No. ND-56l7 to run consecutively. The sentences in the remaining cases are to run concurrently. Defendant will receive credit for time served in the Newton County Jail in the amount of 138 days. Guilty Not Applicable Guilty Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicab|e March 24, 2005 Twenty (2_0) years in the Institutional Division-TDCJ, and M fine 138 days ' DSZ: Judgmcnl of Conviction by Coun; Dircet Scntenc¢, Cause No. ND 5594; Page 1 of 3 Pages HQR~ZB-@E» 11:58 QM DISTRICT C|_ERK - 499 379 9@8?. ‘_P-@Z F'|LED FUR RECOR\'Jv NO.ND5617(Singlecoum)TRN0101117 3208 ‘ mmmu p 2 32 1115 sTATE or TExAs § IN THE 1 A JUDICIAL , ,-¢, § ,U_ EN . v. § DISTRICT COURT 011MDOS"R CTH$LYF"K 13 JAMES ALLEN PELLOAT, § NEWTON coUNTYBq:ExA _ 4 1_, DEFENDANT s__ir) Tx JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY COURT; SENTENCE TO Institutional Division. TDCJ ATE DOF J D ' March 24, 2005 _ ‘ PRESIDING: Monte D. Lawlis ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE: A. W Davis, Jr. ~ ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT William S. Morian, Jr’. ' OFFENSE: Sexual Assault ’ STATUTE FOR OFFENSE: Section 22.011, Penal Code' QE§§REE Q,E QEFENSE: Second Degree Felony PPLICAB E PUN NT RANGE UMQm£inhangemem§_if_gM Second Degree 2-20 yrs in prison/max $10, 000 fine DATE OF OFFENSE: On or about May 01, 2002. cHAggING rNSTRUMENT. Indictment TERM§.QF PLEA AGREEMENT f ' ` IN DET ` James Allen Pelloat will plead guilty to the following-women all 2"d Degree Felonles: N_o. ND-5991, lmproper Relatlonship' (21. 12 P C); ,ND`- 5593 1 Sexual Assault (21. 011 P. C. ); ND- 5594 lmproper Relatlonship_ _ (21. 12 PC); and ND-5617 Sexual Assault (21. 011 P. C). reduced from Aggravated Sexual Assault (22. 021 P. C..) Cm. No ND-5618, improper Relatlonshlp (21.12 P.C) will be dismissed The defendant w r1 receive a sentence of twenty (20) years on each of them cases, with the sentence in case ' " No ND-5992 and the Sentel’lce in c eNo. ND- 5617 to run l consecutively. The sentences in the remaining cases are to run concurrently Defendant will receive credit for time ' ‘ served ln the Newton County Jall 111 the amount of 138 days. _ _ PLEA TQ_ QEEENSE. Guilty ELEA TQ ENHANCEMENT _ PARAGRAPH( Sl: Not Applicable VEBQICT FQR QFFENSE: Guilty FINDIN ON ENH Not Applicable AFFIRMATIYE FIND DIEQ OI§! Q_I;.`,ADLY WEAPON: Not Applicable ' OTHER AFFIRMATIVE SPECIAL -» FINDINGS: Not Applicable DATE SENTENCE IMPQ§§D; March 24, 2005 PU'NTSHMENT AND PLACE OF ONFINEMENT: Twenty (20) years in the Institutlonal Division-TDCJ, and N___o fine TlM_E_) CREDITED TO §ENI El\_JCE: 138 days COURT COSTS: None 1 DSZ' Judgl'hcnt ofConviction by Coun; Direci Sentence, Cause No. ND 5617; Page l oi`3 Pages _