Lubbock man's conviction for sexually abusing girl overturned nine years after guilty plea

The 30-year sentence of a 35-year-old man for sexually abusing an 8-year-old girl was overturned after justices with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found he was misadvised by his attorney when he guilty pleaded guilty nearly a decade ago.

In a 5-4 vote, justices found that James Renfro involuntarily entered his June 18, 2014 guilty plea to a count of continuous sexual abuse of a child in the 140th District Court, according to an opinion filed on Nov. 1.

The decision moves the case back to the indictment stage and Renfro will return to Lubbock County to face the charge against him once a mandate is issued.

The offense, which was created 2007, is a first-degree felony that carries a punishment of 25 years to life in prison without parole. However at his plea hearing, he was advised that the charge carried a punishment of five years to life in prison with a chance of parole after serving half of his sentence.

To convict a defendant of the crime, prosecutors have to prove that an actor committed two or more acts of sexual abuse more than 30 days apart.

Renfro's judicial confession listed six acts of sexual abuse against the girl between February 2011 to February 2013.

The charge against Renfro stems from a Lubbock County Sheriff's Office investigation that began after the girl told a classmate that Renfro was sexually abusing her. The girl also detailed the abuse to a school counselor who called police.

Investigators learned the reported abuse began when the girl was 8 years old. She told a forensic interviewer that Renfro would go into her room and make her "touch him in the privates."

Renfro couldn't appeal his conviction since it was a result of a plea.

Instead, nine years after pleading guilty, he filed, on his own, a writ of habeas corpus, saying he entered his plea after being advised of the incorrect parole eligibility of his charge.

Had he known the true nature of his parole eligibility, Renfro stated he would have invoked his right to a jury trial.

"This is evident from the significant disparity between a 30-year sentence with parole after serving 15 years and a 30-year sentence that must be discharged day for day no matter what. Applicant asserts that such is a deal breaker," Renfro states in the writ.

A majority of the justices believed Renfro's claim that the "difference between his understanding and reality regarding his parole eligibility was a 'deal breaker,'" the opinion states.

The court filed a response, which was prepared by the Lubbock County District Attorney's Office, asking justices to deny Renfro's claim under the Doctrine of Laches.

The doctrine allows courts to reject otherwise valid appellate claims if they were made after an unreasonable delay that disadvantages the opposing party, in this case the prosecutors.

"The longer a case has been delayed, the more likely it is that the reliability of a retrial has been compromised," the response states.

Renfro said the nearly decade-long delay in applying for the writ was because he couldn't afford to pay for the 13-page transcript of his plea hearing that showed the errors in his case.

However, the majority of the justices found the doctrine didn't apply in the case because the record showed Renfro's plea was involuntary.

According to the justice's opinion, the record showed that the trial court and his trial attorney at the time gave Renfro the incorrect punishment range of the charge to which he pleaded guilty.

Renfro's trial attorney filed an affidavit alleging he accurately advised his client about his parole eligibility. However, the justices found the transcript from the plea hearing supports Renfro's claims.

However, justices Mary Lou Keel, Michelle Slaughter and presiding judge Sharon Keller, argued that Renfro's conviction and sentence should be upheld believing he would not have opted for a trial even if he had the correct information.

Their dissenting opinion stated that given the strength of the states' case against him, it was likely that he would have accepted the plea deal, which was on the low-end of the punishment range.

Evidence against him included a sample of a carpet from the girl's bedroom that had his semen on it, her bedsheet and his recorded confession to investigators.

"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," the dissent states.

Meanwhile, Judge Kevin Patrick Yeary wrote in his dissenting opinion, that Renfro should not be given relief since his explanation for the delay of his appeal was insufficient.

"Given the likely minimal cost of obtaining such a brief transcript, a bare claim of poverty does not strike me as a sufficient explanation for Applicant’s otherwise unreasonably long delay," Yeary wrote.

This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Conviction overturned Lubbock man who pleaded guilty to sexual abuse