At the risk of finding it is already covered in "The Perfect Plea", Freeman, No. 06-02-037-CR (12/11/02) suggests to me the necessity of including a statement in our written admonishments to the effect that if a sentence of more than ten years confinement is assessed it cannot be suspended and the court cannot release you upon community supervision. In Freeman the defense attorney either had no business representing an habitual felon, or was extremely optimistic (namely, in believing and advising that despite a true plea to the enhancement allegations, the court might still find his client guilty only of a third degree felony and suspend the sentence for what was at least his client's third DWI offense). I do not know if the admonishment would dispel the argument on appeal that "but for his counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different," but it could not hurt in butressing an argument that counsel's misinformation was not the sole basis for the decision to decline a lesser prison sentence offered by the prosecution.

Does anyone else share my thought that Freeman should have been required to accept the State's offer of a fifteen year sentence in order to get out of his 25 year sentence? Why does he get an entire new trial (and presumably the right to prohibit use against him of any judicial confession he made) since the 15 years is the only way the result of the first proceeding would have been different?

Maybe this case points out that when it becomes evident during the plea hearing that counsel has misinformed his client about the most likely range of punishment (or anything else essential to the ultimate voluntariness of the plea), the prosecutor should speak up.

Does anyone really think two-time ex-con
Freeman hinged his decision to acknowledge his guilt upon his counsel's "dream sentence" just because he "expressed his desire to continue counseling outside the confines of TDCJ-ID"? Why doesn't the appellate court require this type error to be raised by motion for new trial, where presumably the State could develop the evidence that Freeman knew he stood no real chance of anything less than 25 years, or at least knew that under the law it would take a miracle to get probation.

Needless to say, John R., I hope you guys get a lot more than 25 years for Freeman the second time around.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 01-03-03 at .]

There are already too many admonishments.

Texas law goes beyond what is constitutionally required by making a judge warn a defendant about deportation and sex offender registration.

What we need to do is be much more ready to discipline the defense attorney who fails to do his or her job.

And, once again, the prosecutor really is in the best position, during the original guilty plea, to catch these kinds of mistakes.

Presumably Padilla admonishments/considerations are going pretty well. Bradley's comment about increasing admonishments seems valid. But, a bill in California recently proposed quite a few mandated admonishments. If nothing else, maybe defense attorneys should have such a list for their client to inspect.

The list of what the guilty plea may accomplish or affect:

(1)  Ability to obtain employment generally, and may prohibit employment in certain jobs.
(2)  The loss of voting rights while incarcerated and during parole.
(3)  Eligibility to enlist in the military.
(4)  The ability to obtain or maintain certain state professional licenses.
(5)  Eligibility to serve on a jury.
(6)  Eligibility to own or possess a firearm.
(7)  Eligibility for federal health care programs if the felony is related to fraud involving a federal program, patient abuse, or drugs.
(8)  Eligibility for federal financial aid if the felony was committed while the defendant was receiving financial aid.
(9)  Eligibility for federal cash assistance if the felony is drug-related.
(10)  Receipt of Supplemental Security Income.
(11)  Legal parental and child custody rights.