It appears there is no limit on how long a defendant can wait before bringing an unverified claim that his counsel was ineffective. Even twenty-eight years later, even after his counsel has died and can no longer respond, even if plausible arguments can be made about how counsel's actions may not amount to ineffective assistance, there is no bar to pursuing-and obtaining-relief. Instead of prohibiting Applicant from litigating his claims under the doctrine of laches, the Court permits a great expenditure of judicial resources in order to deliver Applicant the relief he seeks, all while casting aside a plausible argument for trial counsel's alleged misconduct,1 Applicant's tremendous delay in bringing his claim, and the impossibility of ascertaining trial counsel's account of what transpired. The Court grants Applicant relief from his 1990 aggravated robbery conviction based on his claim that his plea was involuntary because of an impermissible enhancement paragraph that increased the minimum number of years he faced in prison. I would deny Applicant relief on the basis of laches. For these and other reasons, I respectfully dissent to the Court's granting of relief., In 1984, Applicant was charged with burglary of a building, pled guilty, and was sentenced to confinement for eight years., Applicant's shock probation for burglary was not revoked prior to the filing of his 1990 aggravated robbery charge.2 Nevertheless, the State used the 1984 burglary conviction to enhance Applicant's range of punishment in his robbery case from a minimum of five years to a minimum of fifteen years. Applicant ultimately accepted a thirty-year offer and pled guilty to the 1990 robbery offense. Now, nearly twenty-nine years later, Applicant claims that he would not have pled guilty and accepted the State's thirty-year offer had he known that the punishment range actually should have been a minimum of five years instead of a minimum of fifteen years., The Court today holds that, because Applicant's shock probation was not revoked until after Applicant pled guilty to the robbery charge, his punishment range for the robbery charge was improperly enhanced, making his plea involuntary. Because of the unique posture of this case, and because of the timing of its presentation, I do not agree with the Court's disposition., However, a defense lawyer's failure to recognize that a sentence is being improperly enhanced-because, for example, the enhancing offense was not final-may present an applicant with grounds to assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim or an involuntary plea claim on post-conviction habeas corpus. See Ex parte Lilly , 656 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (\It is fundamental that an attorney must have a firm command of the facts of the case as well as the law before he can render reasonably effective assistance of counsel.\").

an argument could be made that Applicant's trial counsel should have discovered-with even \"the most cursory investigation\"-that Applicant was placed on shock probation for the 1984 burglary offense  |  Just two years after Applicant pled guilty to the 1990 aggravated robbery offense

Pinpoint authority: bottom 29%