Korey Landry A.K.A. Jason Michael Augustine v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 10, 2006
• Docket: 09-05-00186-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-05-186 CR

KOREY LANDRY a.k.a.

JASON MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 78700

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Korey Landry appeals the revocation of his community supervision for the state jail felony offense of Delivery of a Controlled Substance (cocaine). Punishment was assessed by the trial court at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Corrections Division for a term of two years. The trial court further ordered that Landry's two-year sentence commence when his sentence in Trial Cause No. 77270 had ceased to operate. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 42.01, § 1 (19), 42.08 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Landry's lone appellate issue reads: "The State of Texas violated Appellant's due process rights when it abrogated a written plea agreement and advocated "stacked sentences" in contravention of said written plea agreement."

PLEA PROCEEDINGS OF FEBRUARY 14, 2005

The record indicates that proceedings on February 14, 2005, embraced not only Landry's plea of true in the instant case (Trial Cause No. 78700), but also included a plea of true in another revocation action (Trial Cause No. 77270), and guilty pleas in two separate aggravated robbery offenses (Trial Cause Nos. 92194 and 92588). The clerk's record contains a written instrument titled, "AGREED PUNISHMENT RECOMMENDATION - STATE JAIL FELONY," dated "2/14/05," which lists the cause number as "78700," and the offense as "MTRP." The operative portions of this written punishment recommendation read, in pertinent part, as follows: "It is mutually agreed that the following recommendations are binding on the court: . . . Prosecution will proceed only on Count(s) #1"[;] "Dismiss Cause(s) 88718[;] Run concurrently . . . with Cause(s) 92194; 77270; 92588[.] . . . As part of this agreement, the defendant waives any right to appeal." On the face of this written agreement appears Landry's signature, along with the signatures of the State's attorney and Landry's trial counsel.

Landry pleaded guilty to both aggravated robbery causes and also pleaded true to violating both of his community supervision orders. After pleading guilty to the two aggravated robbery offenses, the following events transpired:

THE COURT: Now, in these two [aggravated robbery] cases, did you understand everything that you signed here to your complete satisfaction?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: In each case they tender Number 1 Mr. [Trial Counsel].

[Trial Counsel]: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: They're admitted[.] Now, in each of these cases are you pleading guilty of your own free choice?

THE DEFENDANT: True.

THE COURT: And did you actually do what I've told you they charged you with in each one of these case?

THE COURT: All right. I find the facts justify a verdict of guilty in each case.

In Cause Number 77270 and 78700, in each case they filed a motion asking that your probation be revoked.

In each case it is alleged, Mr. Landry, in count one that you committed aggravated robbery June the 18^th, 2004 in this county.

Is that true.

THE COURT: All of the other counts are dismissed.

I find count one true in each case.

Now, in the two robbery cases - aggravated robbery cases, Mr. Landry, you have a plea bargain agreement with the District Attorney that in no event should the sentence exceed 20 years in the Institutional Division in each of these cases. Although, you could legally get up to life in the penitentiary, they've made that agreement with you and I'm bound by it. That means I couldn't give you more than 20 years if I wanted to.

Do you understand that?

THE COURT: What is going [to] happen, if we go forward is, I'm going to get a report prepared that will contain everything that we can find out about you and your cases and we'll come back here and I'm going to have to make a sentencing decision.

In these two aggravated robbery cases, that decision could be 20 years in prison or 19 or 18, all the way down to 5.

THE COURT: In the revocation cases, one is a State Jail and one is a third degree.

And y'all have recommendations in those that are just recommendations. I'm not legally obligated to follow either one of those.

But as to these two newer cases, you have a right to have a jury decide what should happen.

You've given up that right in each of these cases and in effect said you want your cases handled in the process that I just described to you knowing the possible consequences.

Is that right?

THE COURT: Okay. Then I find count one to be true in Cause Number 78700 and 77270 and find Mr. Landry guilty in 92194 and 92588.

In any event, Cause Number 88718 is going to be dismissed no matter what sentence you receive in your other cases as part of your agreement.

[Trial Counsel] will help you with that report.

SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS OF APRIL 18, 2005

Approximately two months later, the consolidated proceedings reconvened for Landry's sentencing on the four cases. When the trial court requested comments, the State responded with the following:

[The State]: Your Honor, as far as The State's concerned, all consideration's been given to him during the offer that he's been given. He's been given a cap on two different aggravated robberies, both with guns, one in which he injured the victim by hitting the victim in the head and face with the pistol. So, 20 years, I think, is a very considerate offer to the defendant.

. . . .

So, The State would request that you revoke him, that you give him the max that's allowed by law under the probation cases, we'd ask that you give him the maximum under the cap, and we'd ask the Court to stack.

[Trial Counsel]: Part of the plea bargain agreement is that it run concurrently. . . .

[The State]: Since I wasn't the prosecutor that took the plea, may I inquire whether the agreement was just on the aggravated robbery or - -

THE COURT: That's correct. In Cause No. 77270, I find the evidence to be sufficient to find Count 1 to be true. It is, therefore, true. I hereby revoke your community supervision, and in this case I assess your punishment at ten years confinement in the Institutional Division.

In Cause No. 78700, I find the evidence to be sufficient to find Count 1 to be true. It is, therefore, true.

[Trial Counsel]: Are you talking about the motion to revoke?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

[Trial Counsel]: I'm trying to decipher my notes. One of them is a state jail. I have a one year state jail.

THE COURT: The one I'm doing right now is the state jail. 77270 was possession of a controlled substance, which was a third degree; and now I'm on the state jail.

I hereby revoke your community supervision, assess your punishment at two years confinement in the state jail. This will run consecutive to Cause No. 77270.

In Cause No. 92194, I find the evidence to be sufficient to find you guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery. You're, therefore, guilty of that offense; and I assess your punishment at 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division. You will be given credit in that case.

[Trial Counsel]: Your Honor, my notes reflect on February 14^th the agreement was to run those concurrent with each other. That was what my notes show.

THE COURT: Well, I'm going to let the two aggravated cases run concurrently with the case as soon as the state jail is completed.

[Trial Counsel]: I understand. But my understanding - - and I know it's his understanding - - all of the motions to revoke and the aggravated robberies would all run concurrent with one another. We understood the most he could get would be 20 years.

THE COURT: Well, he can appeal that case.

[Trial Counsel]: Can we clear that up?

[The State]: My understanding is this Court never accepts a plea bargain on probation cases.

THE COURT: I don't. I do not accept them. What he's looking at is an additional two years.

In 92588 I find the evidence to be sufficient to find you guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery. You're, therefore, guilty; and I assess your punishment at 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division. This will run concurrent with Cause No. 92194. These two sentences will run concurrently with Cause No. 78700. Okay? Good luck to you, sir.

PARTIES' APPELLATE POSITIONS

On appeal, Landry complains that the State violated his due process rights when it failed to recommend concurrent sentences on all four cases in contravention of the written agreed punishment recommendation executed on February 14, 2005, and in violation of the holding announced in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). The State's reply brief, citing to Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), takes the position that as there are no binding plea agreements in revocation proceedings, and because Landry had no right to withdraw his plea of true when the trial court chose "not to follow the prosecutor's punishment recommendation[,]" no error is presented.

ANALYSIS

It is certainly true that in Gutierrez, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined "that, in the context of revocation proceedings, the legislature has not authorized binding plea agreements, has not required the court to inquire as to the existence of a plea agreement or admonish the defendant pursuant to 26.13, and has not provided for withdrawal of a plea after sentencing." Gutierrez, 108 S.W.3d at 309-10. Nevertheless, the key distinction between the circumstances present in Gutierrez and those in the instant case is that in Gutierrez the State did not repudiate or otherwise renege on the plea-agreement, as the State did in the instant case. See id. at 305 (Trial court revoked defendant's probation but did not accept "the State's recommendation on punishment."). Therefore, the instant case is controlled by the holding in Santobello.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, citing Santobello, recently reaffirmed a number of its prior cases reversing convictions for prosecutorial breaches of plea agreements:

It is well established that it is a defendant's right to have the State honor a plea bargain entered into by the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea, after the judge has accepted the plea bargain in open court. Plea bargains play an extremely important role in the criminal judicial process, and numerous cases in federal and Texas state law emphasize the importance of implementing safeguards to protect the due process rights of defendants who enter into such plea bargains. When a defendant enters into a plea bargain, he waives a number of fundamental constitutional rights, including a trial by jury, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to present witnesses in one's defense, the right to remain silent, and the right to be convicted only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are strict federal and state guidelines and requirements regarding the defendant's ability to enter into such an agreement in order to protect the constitutional rights of the defendant, and among these is the requirement that if a defendant's plea is made based on a promise given by the State, the State must keep up its part of the agreement or the plea will be rendered involuntary. When the prosecution breaches its promise with respect to an executed plea agreement, the defendant pleads guilty on a false premise, and hence his conviction cannot stand. In Santobello v. New York, the United States Supreme Court emphasized this point stating that "when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled."

Bitterman v. State, 180 S.W.3d 139, 141-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (footnotes omitted).

In Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850, 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), the Court concluded a Santobello error opinion with the following holding:

We hold, therefore, that when a defendant, who has entered a negotiated plea of guilty, challenges the conviction and is successful, the appropriate remedy is specific performance of the plea, if possible, or, if not, withdrawal of the plea, with both parties, including the State, returned to their original positions.

Later, in Gibson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), the Court's

Santobello remedy took the following form:

If for some reason the prosecutor does not carry out his side of the agreement, the defendant is entitled to have the agreement specifically performed or the plea withdrawn, whichever is more appropriate under the circumstances. Santobello, 404 U.S. at 263, 92 S.Ct. at 499; Ex parte Adkins, 767 S.W.2d 809, 810 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Tex. Cr.App.1986).

With regard to due process rights found in guilty-plea proceedings, the holding in Santobello extends also to pleas of true in revocation proceedings. See Crawford v. State, 624 S.W.2d 906, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh'g); LeBlanc v. State, 768 S.W.2d 881, 882 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1989, no pet.). Lastly, although Gutierrez did not implicate Santobello error, the Gutierrez Court noted their is some value to "plea-bargaining and the resulting punishment recommendations" in probation-revocation proceedings. Gutierrez, 108 S.W.3d at 310.

In the instant case, the trial court's oral pronouncement of sentence is somewhat unclear as it appears in the record. Initially, the trial court explained to trial counsel that the effect of his cumulative sentencing order in Trial Cause No. 78700 was intended "to let the two aggravated cases run concurrently with the case [Trial Cause No. 77270, ten-year sentence] as soon as the state jail case [Trial Cause No. 78700] is completed." That statement would appear to indicate the trial court did not intend to permit the ten-year sentence (77270) to begin running concurrently with the two 20-year aggravated robbery sentences until Landry served-out his two-year state jail felony sentence (78700). This would appear consistent with the trial court's comment moments later, viz: "What he's looking at is an additional two years." However, immediately after the preceding comment, the trial court concluded its pronouncement of the sentences in this way:

In 92588 I find the evidence to be sufficient to find you guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery. You're, therefore , guilty; and I assess your punishment at 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division. This will run concurrent with Cause No. 92194. These two sentences will run concurrently with Cause No. 78700. Okay? Good luck to you, sir. (emphasis added)

As noted above, when a defendant's Santobello appeal is successful, "the appropriate remedy is specific performance of the plea, if possible, or, if not, withdrawal of the plea, with both parties, including the State, returned to their original positions." See Shannon, 708 S.W.2d at 852. If a plea-agreement, fair on its face when executed, has become unenforceable due to circumstances beyond the control of either party to the agreement, which includes "unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises," a defendant's remedy is limited to withdrawal of his plea and repleading to the original charge. See id. (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.C.t 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)). In the instant case, specific performance, i.e., running all four sentences concurrently, would normally be the proper remedy. However, due to the lack of clarity in the trial court's oral pronouncement of the sentences, we remand this cause (78700) to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Santobello's remedial options of specific performance if possible, or if not, withdrawal of the plea of true. See Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262-63. Landry's appellate issue is sustained, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the authorities cited therein. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted January 3, 2006

Opinion Delivered May 10, 2006

Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.