Renfro, James

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS

NO. WR-95,035-01

EX PARTE JAMES RENFRO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 2013-437,890-A IN THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT
FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

KEEL, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and
SLAUGHTER, J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

Applicant pled guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child. He claims that his

guilty plea was involuntary because he was misadvised about the range of punishment

and parole eligibility. He fails to show a reasonable probability that he would have

insisted on going to trial if he had been advised correctly about these matters.

On the contrary, correct advice about the range of punishment would have only

further discouraged Applicant from going to trial. He was told the range was five to 99

years or life, but it was 25 to 99 years or life. The State’s 30-year offer would have
Renfro - 2

seemed even more attractive given the minimum he faced as compared with the

minimum he was told he faced.

The 30-year offer was also favorable to him because the State had a strong case.

The State says its evidence included testimony from the ten-year-old victim, her outcry to

a school counselor describing two years of sexual abuse, her forensic interview—the

usual kind of evidence. But in addition, the State says there were carpet samples from

the victim’s bedroom bearing Applicant’s semen, and it had Applicant’s non-custodial,

recorded confession to several instances of indecency with a child. Applicant says the

State also had the victim’s bedsheet and Applicant’s typed statement. This was a strong

case for the prosecution.

Given the true range of punishment, the strength of the State’s case, and the low-

end offer, it is unlikely that Applicant would have insisted on trial if he had been told the

correct range of punishment.

As for parole, Applicant was told that he would be eligible after serving half his

sentence, but there is no parole for continuous sexual abuse of a child. Still, he likely

would not have insisted on trial if he had understood the parole reality because the 30-

year offer would have been hard to beat at trial, and acquittal was unlikely.

Finally, he does not claim he would have insisted on trial if he had been correctly

advised; he claims that he would have either insisted on trial or negotiated a better plea

agreement. The latter claim undermines the former.

We should deny relief. Since the Court does otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
Renfro - 3

Filed: November 1, 2023

Do Not Publish