TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00758-CR Ex parte Jordan Graham Bice FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 18-0202-C, THE HONORABLE DAVID GLICKLER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Jordan Graham Bice was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of theft and was sentenced to two days’ “confinement in the Hays County Jail” with credit for time served. See Tex. Penal Code § 31.03(a), (b), (e). Approximately two years later, Bice filed an application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the propriety of his conviction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.09. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the writ application. Bice appeals the trial court’s order. We will affirm the trial court’s order denying the writ application. BACKGROUND As mentioned above, Bice was convicted of theft and later filed an application for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction. In his writ application, Bice stated that he and his girlfriend at the time were alleged to have “removed price tags on several pieces of electronic accessories” at a store and then “replaced them with the price tags of less expensive items.” During the underlying trial proceedings, Kyle Maysel was appointed as Bice’s attorney, and various prosecutors, including Ariane Flores and Benjamin Gillis, were involved in the events leading up to the trial, including plea negotiations. After Bice was convicted, Maysel died. Months later, Bice filed an application for writ of habeas corpus contending that Maysel provided ineffective assistance of counsel during the underlying proceedings. In particular, Bice asserted in his writ application that the State “decided to recommend Pretrial Intervention (‘PTI’),” which “would have allowed [him] to have the charge dismissed . . . upon successful completion of the supervision period, and would have made him eligible for an expunction” after he paid “a $500 fee,” completed “a theft class,” and performed “a small amount of community service.” However, Bice asserted that Maysel incorrectly conveyed that the $500 “fee was discretionary on the part of the” State when the fee was actually mandatory and that the State’s decision to impose the fee meant that the State was acting “out of the ordinary.” Further, Bice argued that he was never advised “that he would be allowed to make payments on the $500 fee.” Bice also alleged that Maysel incorrectly assessed the strength of the State’s case and stated that they “would likely prevail at trial” despite knowing that there were witnesses to and surveillance footage of the alleged crime and that he “was caught with . . . items with altered tags in his possession.” Moreover, Bice argued that Maysel’s assurances about the case and warnings that the State was acting “out of the ordinary” persuaded him “to accept counsel’s advice that he reject the plea offer and proceed to trial.” Additionally, Bice asserted that after the State initially offered to recommend pretrial intervention, the State “offered to recommend six months deferred adjudication on the theft charge, with reduced fine and court costs,” but ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals