OPINION
ONION, Presiding Judge.
This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus brought under the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
Applicant was indicted on June 10, 1985 for the attempted murder of “Richard Reason with a handgun, a deadly weapon.” On May 9, 1986, applicant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the indictment. The court assessed the punishment at 10 years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections. In the judgment the court made an affirmative finding as to the use of a handgun, a deadly weapon, during the commission of the offense. The judgment also reflects “* REVIEWED FOR SHOCK PROBATION AFTER 120 DAYS 1 The docket sheet contains a similar entry.
Applicant alleges the above described plea of guilty was entered as a part of a plea bargain agreement with the State and [227]*227approved by the court that he was to be granted shock probation pursuant to Article 42.12, § 3e, V.A.C.C.P. He further contends that the plea bargain agreement which induced his plea of guilty could not be fulfilled due to the affirmative finding of the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense by the trial court and entered in the judgment;2 that the trial court, prosecutor, defense counsel and applicant were unaware at the time that the plea bargain could not be carried out. He relies upon Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), as authority entitling him to relief.
In accordance with Article 11.07, supra, the habeas application was first filed in the convicting court. At the time of filing of the original habeas application in the trial court the 180 days in which the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant shock probation had not expired. No action was taken on the original application and an amended application was filed after the 180 day period had expired. Several months later the trial court adopted the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that applicant’s guilty plea was made with the assurances that he would be released on shock probation, and that in attempting to fulfill this plea bargain it was discovered that applicant was not legally eligible for shock probation, and that since the plea was based on a promise which could not be fulfilled, the guilty plea was involuntary and that the applicant is entitled to have his plea withdrawn.
It is now axiomatic that when a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the State is bound to carry out its side of the plea bargain or the plea itself is involuntary. DeRusse v. State, 579 S.W. 2d 224 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte Rogers, 629 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Ex parte Garcia, 682 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985); Ex parte Perkins, 706 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). If the prosecution does not live up to its part of the plea bargain and such bargain was used as an inducement for the guilty plea, doubt is raised as to whether a guilty plea under such circumstance is truly voluntary. Bass ¶. State, 576 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Rogers, supra, at 742; Ex parte Pruitt, 689 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). Further, when the court loses jurisdiction so as to bar enforcement of a plea bargain agreement, doubt is also raised as to whether a guilty plea under such circumstances can be regarded as truly voluntary. Rogers, supra, at 742. And where the provisions of the plea agreement or bargain later become unenforceable, the plea is involuntary. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). This is true even though the State or the court never did have the authority to ensure compliance with the plea bargain. Cf. Ex parte Chandler, 684 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). The appropriate relief for failure to keep a plea bargain is either specific enforcement of the agreement or withdrawal of the plea, depending upon the circumstances of each case. Joiner v. State, 578 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Ex parte Perkins, supra.
In the instant case the trial court lost jurisdiction to grant shock probation after the 180 days as provided in Article 42.12, § 3e, V.A.C.C.P. See Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte Rogers, supra, at 742. For this reason alone the applicant would be entitled to relief in light of the plea bargain regardless of whether the trial court had authority to grant shock probation or not in view of the affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. Applicant, however, does not claim the plea bargain was broken by the loss of jurisdiction, but contends the plea bargain was not carried out because the prosecutor and the court decided that shock probation could not legally be granted in light of the said affirmative finding. It is to this matter we turn our attention.
In 1985 the Legislature reorganized the statutes regulating probation, parole and executive clemency, etc., by amending Article 42.12, V.A.C.C.P., and by adding Article 42.18, V.A.C.C.P., and by repealing Article [228]*22842.13, V.A.C.C.P. (Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 427, p. 2895, effective Sept. 1, 1985).
Under this reorganization we find that § 3e(a) of said Article 42.12 provides:
“Sec. 3e. (a) For the purposes of this section, the jurisdiction of a court in which a sentence requiring confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections is imposed for conviction (of a felony) shall continue for 180 days from the date the execution of the sentence actually begins. After the expiration of 60 days but prior to the expiration of 180 days from the date the execution of the sentence actually begins, the judge of the court that imposed such sentence may on his own motion or on written motion of the defendant, suspend further execution of the sentence imposed and place the defendant on probation under the terms and conditions of this article, if in the opinion of the judge the defendant would not benefit from further incarceration in a penitentiary. Probation may be granted under this section only if:
“(1) the defendant is otherwise eligible for probation under this article; and
“(2) the defendant had never before been incarcerated in a penitentiary serving a sentence for a felony; and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
ONION, Presiding Judge.
This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus brought under the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
Applicant was indicted on June 10, 1985 for the attempted murder of “Richard Reason with a handgun, a deadly weapon.” On May 9, 1986, applicant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the indictment. The court assessed the punishment at 10 years’ confinement in the Department of Corrections. In the judgment the court made an affirmative finding as to the use of a handgun, a deadly weapon, during the commission of the offense. The judgment also reflects “* REVIEWED FOR SHOCK PROBATION AFTER 120 DAYS 1 The docket sheet contains a similar entry.
Applicant alleges the above described plea of guilty was entered as a part of a plea bargain agreement with the State and [227]*227approved by the court that he was to be granted shock probation pursuant to Article 42.12, § 3e, V.A.C.C.P. He further contends that the plea bargain agreement which induced his plea of guilty could not be fulfilled due to the affirmative finding of the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense by the trial court and entered in the judgment;2 that the trial court, prosecutor, defense counsel and applicant were unaware at the time that the plea bargain could not be carried out. He relies upon Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), as authority entitling him to relief.
In accordance with Article 11.07, supra, the habeas application was first filed in the convicting court. At the time of filing of the original habeas application in the trial court the 180 days in which the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant shock probation had not expired. No action was taken on the original application and an amended application was filed after the 180 day period had expired. Several months later the trial court adopted the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that applicant’s guilty plea was made with the assurances that he would be released on shock probation, and that in attempting to fulfill this plea bargain it was discovered that applicant was not legally eligible for shock probation, and that since the plea was based on a promise which could not be fulfilled, the guilty plea was involuntary and that the applicant is entitled to have his plea withdrawn.
It is now axiomatic that when a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the State is bound to carry out its side of the plea bargain or the plea itself is involuntary. DeRusse v. State, 579 S.W. 2d 224 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte Rogers, 629 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Ex parte Garcia, 682 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985); Ex parte Perkins, 706 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). If the prosecution does not live up to its part of the plea bargain and such bargain was used as an inducement for the guilty plea, doubt is raised as to whether a guilty plea under such circumstance is truly voluntary. Bass ¶. State, 576 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Rogers, supra, at 742; Ex parte Pruitt, 689 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). Further, when the court loses jurisdiction so as to bar enforcement of a plea bargain agreement, doubt is also raised as to whether a guilty plea under such circumstances can be regarded as truly voluntary. Rogers, supra, at 742. And where the provisions of the plea agreement or bargain later become unenforceable, the plea is involuntary. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). This is true even though the State or the court never did have the authority to ensure compliance with the plea bargain. Cf. Ex parte Chandler, 684 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). The appropriate relief for failure to keep a plea bargain is either specific enforcement of the agreement or withdrawal of the plea, depending upon the circumstances of each case. Joiner v. State, 578 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Ex parte Perkins, supra.
In the instant case the trial court lost jurisdiction to grant shock probation after the 180 days as provided in Article 42.12, § 3e, V.A.C.C.P. See Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte Rogers, supra, at 742. For this reason alone the applicant would be entitled to relief in light of the plea bargain regardless of whether the trial court had authority to grant shock probation or not in view of the affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. Applicant, however, does not claim the plea bargain was broken by the loss of jurisdiction, but contends the plea bargain was not carried out because the prosecutor and the court decided that shock probation could not legally be granted in light of the said affirmative finding. It is to this matter we turn our attention.
In 1985 the Legislature reorganized the statutes regulating probation, parole and executive clemency, etc., by amending Article 42.12, V.A.C.C.P., and by adding Article 42.18, V.A.C.C.P., and by repealing Article [228]*22842.13, V.A.C.C.P. (Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 427, p. 2895, effective Sept. 1, 1985).
Under this reorganization we find that § 3e(a) of said Article 42.12 provides:
“Sec. 3e. (a) For the purposes of this section, the jurisdiction of a court in which a sentence requiring confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections is imposed for conviction (of a felony) shall continue for 180 days from the date the execution of the sentence actually begins. After the expiration of 60 days but prior to the expiration of 180 days from the date the execution of the sentence actually begins, the judge of the court that imposed such sentence may on his own motion or on written motion of the defendant, suspend further execution of the sentence imposed and place the defendant on probation under the terms and conditions of this article, if in the opinion of the judge the defendant would not benefit from further incarceration in a penitentiary. Probation may be granted under this section only if:
“(1) the defendant is otherwise eligible for probation under this article; and
“(2) the defendant had never before been incarcerated in a penitentiary serving a sentence for a felony; and
“(3) the offense for which the defendant was convicted was other than those defined by Section 19.02, 20.04, 22.021, 22.03, 22.04(a)(1), (2), or (3), 29.03, 36.02, 38.07, 71.02 or a felony of the second degree under Section 38.10, Penal Code.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Article 42.12, § 2, as amended in the 1985 reorganization of the statute reads:
“Sec. 2. This Article may be cited as the ‘Adult Probation Law’.
“Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall apply to the specified words and phrases as used in this Article:
“a. * * *
“b. ‘Probation’ shall mean the release of a convicted defendant by a court under conditions imposed by the court for a specified period during which the imposition of sentence is suspended....”
Section 3 of Article 42.12, supra, as reorganized in 1985 provides that the “judges of the courts of the State of Texas having original jurisdictions of criminal actions” may place a defendant on probation after a conviction or a plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere where the maximum punishment assessed against the defendant does not exceed ten years’ imprisonment and “it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as the defendant will be subserved thereby.”
Section 3c of the statute under the 1985 version reads:
“Sec. 3c. Nothing herein shall limit the power of the court to grant probation of sentence regardless of the recommendation of the jury or the prior conviction of the defendant.”
The provisions of Sections 3 and 3c are limited by the provisions of Section 3g(a) found in the 1985 amendment which reads:
“Sec. 3g. (a) The provisions of Sections 3 and 3c of this Article do not apply:
“(1) to a defendant adjudged guilty of an offense defined by the following sections of the Penal Code:
“(A) Section 19.03 (Capital murder);
“(B) Section 20.04 (Aggravated kidnapping);
“(C) Section 22.021 (Aggravated sexual assault);
“(D) Section 29.03 (Aggravated robbery); or
“(2) to a defendant when it is shown that the defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon as defined in Section 1.07(a)(ll), Penal Code, during the commission of a felony offense or during immediate flight therefrom. Upon affirmative finding that the defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of an offense or during immediate flight therefrom, the trial court shall enter the finding in the judgment of the court. Upon an affirmative finding that the deadly weapon the defendant used or exhibited was a firearm, the [229]*229court shall enter that finding in its judgment.” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is thus clear under the 1985 reorganization of Article 42.12, supra, in effect at the time of applicant’s plea of guilty before the court in 1986, that upon the entry of an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon in the judgment the applicant was not eligible for “regular” probation by the trial court and the trial court was without “power” to grant the same. If applicant was not eligible for “regular” probation because of the affirmative finding, see § 3g(a), supra, then he was not eligible for shock probation under § 3e(a), supra, because he could be granted shock probation only if he was “otherwise eligible for probation under this article.”
The trial court was correct in concluding that the 1986 plea bargain could not be carried out, and that applicant was entitled to the relief he sought.
The concurring opinion concludes that the trial court could have granted shock probation despite the affirmative finding of a deadly weapon. Judge Clinton, in his opinion, takes the reader back to 1977 and the 65th Legislature when the original shock probation law (S.B. 695) was enacted as § 3e of Article 42.12 as it then existed, and when the provisions of what is now § 3g(a) was enacted as § 3f of the then existing Adult Probation Law (S.B. 152). These bills coursed generally independent of each other through the legislative process. Regardless of whether one agrees with Judge Clinton or not about the construction to be placed upon the 1977 enactments, it is observed that in 1981 the shock probation provision of Article 42.12, supra, was completely rewritten and subsection (c) was added (Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 69, p. 154, effective Sept. 1, 1981). As Judge Clinton notes, the bill analysis accompanying Senate Bill 123 (67th Leg.) plainly states that the bill proposed to restrict the categories of defendants who would be eligible for shock probation. This is clear when the 1981 version is compared to the 1977 version of § 3e(a). Inter alia, the time that the trial court retained jurisdiction was increased from 120 to 180 days, the 1977 provision that shock probation could be granted “if such sentence is otherwise eligible for probation under this article” was changed to provide that shock probation could be granted “only if: (1) the defendant is otherwise eligible for probation under this article,” and the prohibition against granting “shock probation in cases of criminal homicide, rape, or robbery” was extended to a whole list of offenses designated by section numbers in the Penal Code, § 3e(a)(3).
Section 5 of the said S.B. 123 also provided: “A defendant’s eligibility for shock probation is governed by this Act if the judgment of conviction is entered on or after the effective date of this Act. The eligibility for shock probation of a defendant as to whom a judgment of conviction was entered before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in existence before the effective date, and that law is continued in effect for this purpose as if this law were nob in force.”
In 1983 the former offenses of rape and aggravated rape became sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault respectively. (Acts 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., chap. 977, p. 5311 (H.B. 2008).) Section 9 of said H.B. 2008 amended § 3e(a)(3) of Article 42.12, supra, to add the offense defined in § 22.021 of the Penal Code to those offenses for which shock probation was prohibited (replacing former §§ 21.03 and 21.-05).
As amended in 1981 and 1983 § 3e(a) was brought forward in the complete reorganization of the Adult Probation Law (Article 42.12, supra) in 1985. We cannot agree that it was the intent of the Legislature in the reorganization of Article 42.12, supra, to permit shock probation by the court despite an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon in the judgment whereas the same would foreclose the trial court from granting “regular” probation.
The relief prayed for by the applicant is granted. The judgment and sentence in Cause No. F-8587181-KH in Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County is set aside, and the applicant is ordered released to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas [230]*230County to answer the indictment in said cause. A copy of this opinion will be furnished the Texas Department of Corrections by the Clerk of this Court.
It is so ordered.