Ex Parte Sanchez
No.WR-83,806-01
Case Summary written by Eric Matthews, Staff Member.
In the original trial, the trial court sentenced Sanchez to ten years in prison after he pleaded “no contest” to aggravated assault. Sanchez then applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he had deficient counsel at trial because his attorney incorrectly advised him that he could receive community supervision. Sanchez was not eligible for community supervision due to his deadly weapon allegation. He further claimed that he would not have plead “no contest” if he had known of his ineligibility.
The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that Sanchez’s counsel at trial was deficient because Sanchez was never correctly advised about his ineligibility for community supervision. This deficient performance prejudiced Sanchez, as his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The court granted relief and remanded the case to trial.
JUDGE YEARY, concurring.
Judge Yeary agreed that relief should be granted but not because Sanchez’s counsel provided incorrect advice. Yeary argued that the counsel’s advice was not sufficiently detailed due to the court’s recent decision in Guthrie-Nail v. State, which he claimed gave the trial judge absolute discretion to decline a finding of the use of a deadly weapon. Yeary believed his dissent in that case would simplify this issue as well.