Ex parte James Allen Pelloat

Pelloat · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · November 4, 2015 · No. WR-75,937-07; WR-75,937-06; WR-75,937-08; trial cause numbers 5617, 5593, 5591-A

Summary

This document is a pro se motion for reconsideration filed by James Allen Pelloat in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Pelloat challenges the denial or handling of his post-conviction habeas claims, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary pleas, ex post facto violations, and irregularities involving his indictments and plea proceedings. The submission includes or reproduces portions of a 2005 plea transcript, 2011 state-court findings of fact and conclusions of law, and an excerpt from Ex parte Moussazadeh.

Court
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
November 4, 2015
Docket number
WR-75,937-07; WR-75,937-06; WR-75,937-08; trial cause numbers 5617, 5593, 5591-A
Procedural posture
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' prior decision concerning his post-conviction habeas applications. The motion asserted that the district clerk failed to process an amended habeas application and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with his guilty pleas.
Standard of review
The attached trial-court conclusions state that the habeas applicant bore the burden of proving entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence. No appellate standard of review is stated for the motion for reconsideration.
Precedential value
No precedential value determined from the supplied text; the document is a motion for reconsideration rather than a complete merits opinion.
Parties
James Allen Pelloat v. State of Texas
Disposition
other

Topics

state post-conviction reliefineffective assistanceplea bargainingex post factoappellate procedure

Practice areas

state post-conviction reliefcriminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals should reconsider its August 14, 2015 decision concerning Pelloat's post-conviction habeas claims.
  2. Whether the failure of the Newton County district clerk to process Pelloat's amended habeas application violated his due-process right of access to the courts.
  3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allegedly failing to inform Pelloat about the effective date of Texas Penal Code section 21.12 and alleged defects in the indictments and offense dates.
  4. Whether Pelloat's guilty pleas were involuntary because counsel allegedly withheld or misrepresented material information concerning the charges and plea consequences.
  5. Whether the convictions or charges implicated the federal or Texas constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.

Factual background

Pelloat pleaded guilty to four offenses arising from alleged conduct involving a student and received twenty-year sentences in each case, with the sentences in causes 5593 and 5617 running consecutively and the others concurrently. His post-conviction claims focused on an allegedly invalid offense date, the application of Texas Penal Code section 21.12, and counsel's advice concerning the charges and plea consequences. The Newton County habeas court found that counsel advised Pelloat about the elements, punishment ranges, consecutive sentencing, and the effective date of section 21.12, and concluded that the plea was knowing and voluntary and that counsel was not ineffective.

Procedural history

Pelloat pleaded guilty in Newton County district court on March 24, 2005, to four felony offenses and received twenty-year sentences, with two sentences ordered to run consecutively. The trial court denied his post-conviction habeas application in 2011 after relying on affidavits and entering findings of fact and conclusions of law. The motion states that the Court of Criminal Appeals rendered a decision on August 14, 2015, and asks that court to reconsider it; the supplied text does not include a ruling on the motion for reconsideration.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…