Skip to main content
Tag

Guilty Plea

May 12
Love1
Man standing at a crossroads symbolizing decision-making in Texas criminal plea bargaining process.

The Process of Plea Bargaining in Texas Criminal Law: Benefits, Drawbacks, and Practical Application

By Criminal Defense

Plea bargaining is a pivotal part of Texas’s criminal justice system. In fact, the vast majority of criminal cases in Texas are resolved through plea deals rather than jury trials. This process allows for negotiated resolutions

Man standing at a crossroads symbolizing decision-making in Texas criminal plea bargaining process.

Choosing a legal path: Understanding how plea bargaining works in the Texas criminal justice system.

between the defense and prosecution, potentially sparing both parties the cost, uncertainty, and emotional toll of trial. But while plea bargaining offers efficiency, it also raises concerns about fairness and justice.

Let’s take a closer look at how plea-bargaining works in Texas, its advantages and disadvantages, and what it means in real-world criminal cases.

How Plea-Bargaining Works in Texas

  1. Initiation of Negotiations

Plea negotiations usually begin after the defendant has been formally charged and the discovery process has begun. Either side—prosecution or defense—can initiate the discussion.

  • In misdemeanor cases, plea offers often come early, sometimes during the first court appearance.
  • In felony cases, especially serious ones, offers typically follow initial case assessments and evidence review.
  1. Offer and Counteroffer

The prosecutor presents a proposed deal, which might involve:

  • Reducing charges (e.g., felony to misdemeanor),
  • Recommending probation instead of jail,
  • Offering deferred adjudication or pretrial diversion.

The defense attorney evaluates the offer and may negotiate modifications or propose alternatives based on the strength of the evidence, the defendant’s background, and mitigating factors.

  1. Judicial Review and Approval

Once both sides reach an agreement, the judge must review the plea. Texas judges ensure:

  • The plea is made voluntarily,
  • The defendant understands their rights and the consequences,
  • The agreement is not contrary to law or public interest.
  1. Entry of Plea and Sentencing

The defendant appears in court, formally enters a guilty or no-contest plea, and is sentenced according to the deal. In some cases, sentencing may be delayed for further hearings or pre-sentence investigations.

Potential Benefits of Plea Bargaining

Efficiency – Court dockets in Texas are crowded. Plea deals expedite resolution, reduce backlogs, and allow courts to focus resources on more complex or contested trials.

Certainty and Predictability – Trials carry risk. Even strong defenses can falter before a jury. A plea deal provides a known outcome, which can be critical for defendants concerned about family, employment, or immigration status.

Reduced Sentences – Defendants often receive a more lenient sentence through a plea than they would if convicted at trial. This might include:

  • Reduced jail or prison time,
  • Avoidance of certain charges that carry collateral consequences (like license suspension),
  • Possibility of record sealing later through deferred adjudication.

Protection for Victims – Plea deals can spare victims from testifying in open court, which may be especially important to the prosecution in sensitive cases such as assault, domestic violence, or sexual offenses.

Drawbacks and Controversies

Risk of Coercion – Defendants may feel pressure to accept a plea—even if innocent—because the risk of trial (e.g., decades in prison) is too great. This is especially true when bail is denied, or pretrial detention continues.

Unequal Justice – Outcomes can hinge on legal representation. Those with experienced defense attorneys may secure better deals than unrepresented or underrepresented defendants.

Lack of Transparency – Plea deals occur behind closed doors. Unlike trials, they are not public proceedings, leading to concerns about accountability and consistency.

Limited Appeal Options – Once a plea is entered and accepted, the right to appeal is typically waived. This means defendants lose the ability to challenge errors in evidence gathering, charging decisions, or constitutional violations.

Plea Bargaining in Practice: Common Texas Scenarios

Here are a few examples of how plea bargaining might play out in everyday criminal cases:

DWI Cases – A first-time DWI defendant might be offered a plea to “obstruction of a highway,” a Class B misdemeanor with less stigma and fewer long-term consequences.

Drug Possession – Non-violent offenders may be offered pretrial diversion or deferred adjudication in exchange for counseling, community service, and clean drug tests.

Family Violence – In some cases, a charge may be reduced from a family violence assault to simple assault without the “affirmative finding,” avoiding future firearm bans or enhanced penalties.

Felony Theft or Assault – A felony may be reduced to a state jail or misdemeanor offense, especially if restitution is made or the victim supports leniency.

Tips for Navigating a Plea Bargain in Texas

If you’re considering a plea deal, keep these practical tips in mind:

  • Hire a Skilled Defense Attorney: Your attorney can assess the evidence, negotiate effectively, and protect your rights.
  • Understand the Consequences: Will the plea result in a conviction? Will it affect your job, license, or immigration status?
  • Weigh the Strength of the Case: If the prosecution’s case is weak, trial may be worth the risk. Don’t accept a deal out of fear alone.
  • Take Your Time: Don’t rush. Judges rarely require immediate answers—most give time to consult with your lawyer and family.

Final Thoughts

Plea bargaining isn’t about guilt or innocence alone—it’s a legal strategy shaped by risk, opportunity, and the facts of each case. While plea deals offer a path to resolution and can be in the best interest of many defendants, they should never be entered into lightly.

If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Texas, don’t navigate this alone. An experienced defense attorney can help you make informed decisions, protect your rights, and find the best path forward.

Nov 26
Love3
Attorney Duty Not to Concede Guilt Turner

Attorneys Have a Legal Obligation Not to Concede Guilt

By Ineffective Assistance

Attorney Duty Not to Concede Guilt TurnerThe Court of Criminal Appeals recently handed down an opinion regarding an attorney’s obligation not to concede their client’s guilt. The issue before the Court was whether the defendant was entitled to a new trial on direct appeal because his defense counsel conceded his guilt at trial against his wishes.

Turner v. State—Court of Criminal Appeals (2018)

The Facts—Defense Counsel Conceded Client’s Guilt Against His Wishes.

In the underlying case, defense counsel was appointed to represent Defendant for capital murder. Defendant had been charged with killing his wife and mother-in-law. Based on overwhelming evidence against Defendant, counsel insisted he admit his guilt and concentrate on obtaining a life sentence in order to avoid the death penalty. Defendant, however, did not want to admit guilt and made it readily apparent to counsel. Defendant also disputed counsel’s mitigation investigation in regard to his trial. Counsel responded to this claim by stating that Defendant did not have a voice in the matter that would override their voice or their tactics. Counsel further stated that Defendant was only allowed to decide whether to plea and whether to testify.

Against Defendant’s wishes, counsel told the jury in opening statements that the evidence would show Defendant killed his wife in a jealous rage, and it would also show that the grandma’s death was accidental. Counsel further told the jury that the facts of the case did not support the offense of capital murder, that Defendant was in denial about having committed the crime, and that the proper verdict was the lesser-included offense of murder. Defendant, however, maintained his innocence throughout trial and denied any involvement in the murders.

Even after Defendant testified to his innocence, counsel still conceded that Defendant was guilty in closing arguments. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals looked to a recent United States Supreme Court decision, McCoy v. Louisiana, to assess its impact.

McCoy v. Louisiana—Supreme Court Holds the Sixth Amendment Guarantees a Defendant “the Right to Insist that Counsel Refrain from Admitting Guilt.”

Recently, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of an attorney conceding their client’s guilt without their consent. In McCoy, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder, and the State was seeking the death penalty. Based on overwhelming evidence in that case, defense counsel advised the defendant he planned to concede guilt to avoid the death penalty. The defendant was irate and told his attorney “not to make that concession.” Against these demands, defense counsel conceded guilt in opening statements. Even so, the defendant maintained his innocence throughout trial.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to a defendant “the right to insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experience-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.” The Court further stated, “When a client expressly asserts that the objective of ‘his defense’ is to maintain innocence of the charged criminal acts, his lawyer must abide by that objective and may not override it by conceding guilt.” The Court explained that a defendant’s choice to maintain his innocence is an “objective of representation, not merely an issue of trial tactics.” As such, the decision is one for the client, not the attorney.

With this decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the error was structural in nature and, therefore, required an automatic reversal. The Court explained that the issue was not one of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel because the issue was concerning “a client’s autonomy, not counsel’s competence.”

Court of Criminal Appeals Reverses and Remands Case—Finding Counsel Committed a McCoy Violation by Conceding Guilt Against the Defendant’s Wishes.

In reviewing McCoy, the Court of Criminal Appeal held it was applicable. The State, however, argued that the defendant failed to timely object and preserve the record in order to show a McCoy violation. The Court disagreed with the State by explaining that a defendant should not be expected to object with the precision of an attorney. Rather a defendant can make a McCoy claim by presenting expressing his innocence.

Here, there was no question that the defendant wanted to maintain his innocence. During his testimony, he stated so explicitly. And, despite the defendant’s testimony disagreeing with counsel’s strategy, they continued to concede guilt in closing arguments. Further, as stated above, counsel believed the only decisions Defendant was entitled to make were “whether to plea and to testify.” Thus, solidifying the Court’s conclusion that counsel knew they were acting against Defendant’s wishes. And, moreover, that they believed they were not required to follow his wishes.

Based on the above facts, the Court determined that the defendant adequately preserved his McCoy claim and there was in fact a violation. And, even though counsel’s strategy to concede guilt was more rational than Defendant’s theory, whether to concede guilt is one of the few rights that the defendant alone must determine under the Sixth Amendment. It’s a decision reserved for the client, not the attorney. As a result, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.