Renfro, James

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-95,035-01
EX PARTE JAMES RENFRO, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 2013-437,890-A IN THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY
Per curiam. YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KEEL, J., filed a dissenting opinion
in which KELLER, P.J., and SLAUGHTER, J., joined.
OPINION
Applicant pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to thirty
years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ
of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary because he had an incorrect understanding
of the plea bargain, specifically as it pertained to the applicable punishment range and parole
consequences of his plea. In support, Applicant argues that the trial court erroneously admonished
him during the plea hearing as to the punishment range for the offense and to his parole eligibility.
2
Applicant also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) erroneously advising him as to the
punishment range and his parole eligibility, and (2) failing to correct the trial court’s erroneous
admonishments during the plea hearing. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law
and recommends that relief be denied based on laches or, alternatively, on the merits. We disagree.
We do not believe that laches should bar relief in this particular case because the record shows that
Applicant’s guilty plea was involuntary.
Trial counsel filed an affidavit alleging he accurately advised Applicant regarding the parole
consequences of pleading guilty. Applicant alleges that, at the time he entered his guilty plea, he
incorrectly believed that he was pleading to a thirty-year sentence with the possibility of parole after
serving fifteen years when in reality that he was pleading to a thirty-year sentence that had to be
served day-for-day. The transcript from the plea hearing supports Applicant’s, not trial counsel’s,
allegations. It shows that the trial court affirmatively misadvised Applicant that he would be eligible
for parole after serving half of his sentence when he was in fact ineligible for parole, that Applicant
confirmed that this was his understanding, and that trial counsel (as well as the State) not only failed
to correct the trial court’s erroneous admonishment but affirmed its accuracy. Applicant credibly
asserts that the difference between his understanding and reality regarding his parole eligibility was
a “deal breaker”; He would have exercised his right to a jury trial had he been advised and
admonished correctly about parole.
Relief is granted. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). The judgment in cause
number 2013-437,890 in the 140th District Court of Lubbock County is set aside, and Applicant is
remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Lubbock County to answer the charges as set out in the
indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of
3
this Court’s mandate.
Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional
Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Delivered: NOVEMBER 01, 2023
Do not publish