Judge Rules San Angelo's DAs Can Demand Confession from Wayward Defense Attorney

SAN ANGELO, TX — San Angelo attorney Patricia Stone said she didn't believe she'd find relief in court today. She claimed the DAs were retaliating against her as she, and her husband John, worded her allegations against the two elected prosecutors in a motion attached to 10 criminal Tom Green County district court cases where she was appointed by the court to represent the defendants.

In the Tom Green County Courthouse today, visiting Judge Robert Moore heard oral arguments concerning Stone's complaint submitted via the motion that both 51st DA Allison Palmer and 119th DA John Best were demanding Stone sign a "Confession" affirming she believes plea bargaining is constitutional before any prosecutor here will agree to a plea deal with one of Stone's clients.

Stone also represents a client who is appealing his San Angelo district court conviction at the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals. Her argument for her client there, as stated in an appellate brief she wrote, is that all plea bargains are unconstitutional in Texas.

Stone argued that the local DAs aren't appreciative of her claim that plea bargains are unconstitutional. They demand she sign the Confession saying otherwise as retaliation for her work at the appellate court.

Stone will not sign the Confession, she said, because doing so would "sell my [appellate] client down the river." She asked, how can she sign an admonishment stating she believed plea bargaining was constitutional for a any new case at the district court level and not have that signed statement wind up in the appellate court, torpedoing her case there?

Stone told the judge that filing the 53-page motion to sanction the DAs was her last resort. She said she had attempted to discuss the matter with both DAs and none have answered her letters. She said multiple attempts, or letters, were mailed. One was sent via registered mail to Best, she said. Neither DA reached out to try resolving Stone's dilemma.

DA Allison Palmer argued for both DAs. John Best sat beside her silently as Palmer told the judge she couldn’t find any legal justifications for imposing sanctions against herself or Best. Then Palmer told the judge neither DA has any concern about what happens at the appellate level and the contents of the admonishment, if signed, would remain only with them.

Palmer said she needed the Confession signed because her office "has cause for concern about every plea deal we make where Stone is the defense attorney." That is, will the adjudicated client of Stone's use Stone's argument of unconstitutionality of all plea bargains to circumvent the agreement at a later date?

From Palmer's argument, an example of what could happen starts when a future Stone client agreed to a plea bargain arrangement with Stone's advice that resulted in deferred adjudication and probation. Then should Stone's client subsequently violate the terms of probation, the client would be convicted and sentenced with the original charge. That client could then appeal the conviction declaring the advice the court-appointed attorney gave him or her was invalid because the same attorney believed plea bargains were unconstitutional, rendering the advice, and thus recommendation to accept the plea bargain, fraudulent.

"If Mrs. Stone believes what she argues at the appellate court, that plea bargains are unconstitutional, I don't know of any defense lawyer who would advise her client to willfully engage in an unconstitutional act here," Palmer continued, suggesting that Stone herself is shackled from performing her duties as a defense attorney regardless of whether she signs the Confession as demanded by her office.

Judge Moore cut off Palmer. He was curious to hear Stone's answer to that question. "What are you going to tell your other clients [other than the client at the appellate court] about a plea deal?" he asked.

Stone maintained that plea deals remain constitutional until declared otherwise in the appellate court's ruling. So, until then, she still operates within the confines of the law if she facilitates a plea bargain with the DAs. If she prevails in Austin, all plea deals will be declared unconstitutional regardless if those disposed cases are from among Stone's clients or not. If she loses, nothing changes.

Judge Moore was also concerned that ruling in the affirmative to Stone's motion would force the DAs to commit a legal error in not protecting their plea deals from future litigation or reversal.

"Whether or not Stone's client voluntarily agreed to the plea bargain or not comes into question," Judge Moore said. "I can see one of your clients come back to the court and renege on the plea deal. I can see that the DA would want some protection."

Stone became animated. "This piece of paper (the Confession) is something they can use in the Carpenter case," she said. That case is appealing a conviction in a Tom Green County district court that was prosecuted by the DAs' office now demanding Stone's Confession. "They can get at Carpenter by abusing my [other] clients," Stone stressed.

Palmer connected with the judge, summarizing where the two seemed to agree.

"The concern is voluntary pleas. Are they? Given Mrs. Stone's stand on the constitutionality of plea bargains," Palmer argued.

Judge Moore then inquired on whether or not the signed Confessions would end up in the appellate court's evidence file.

"I don't know how they would," Palmer answered.

Stone was quick to counter, "I don't trust the DAs' office here."

Then Stone added a twist. The Carpenter case is also in front of a federal court to decide a habeas corpus issue. She asked, what if the Confession found itself in the evidence file of the federal case, too?

In the end, Judge Moore said he could find no legal basis to rule in favor of the motion. The judge said his approach was narrow, that he was only going to rule for or against the motion, not arbitrate the dispute between Stone and the DAs. Doing so was beyond the scope of why the 51st Judicial District Court hired him as a visiting judge, he said.

Stone informed the judge that she was withdrawing as defense counsel for 10 clients immediately. Most of them were in the courtroom. Approximately three were still incarcerated awaiting a bail reduction or plea bargain.

"I can no longer effectively represent them," Stone said.

"What about your clients who are incarcerated? Do they have plea bargains pending? [Palmer nodded in the affirmative] What about their speedy trial?" Judge Moore asked.

Palmer affirmed that all plea bargains already negotiated but not agreed upon because of Stone's refusal to sign the Confession were still on the table if there was another attorney appointed to take their cases.

Stone then stated that she wants to remain in rotation to be appointed by the court to represent additional indigent defendants. She said she would bill the county the time required to request she be removed from each case as the first and only action for each newly assigned defendant. This is to prove her point, she said.

Stone also said she has hired a Washington D.C.-based attorney to pursue a federal case against the DAs.

Finally, Stone said she is already having a conversation with the State of Texas Bar Grievance Committee about what she has termed retaliation against her. Stone said they would be investigating her complaint.

Until a resolution is found, Stone said, "I'll keep on withdrawing from cases and billing the county for the time required to do it."

The judge's denial of the motion effectively ends Stone's career as a criminal defense attorney in the county for now, except for the Carpenter appeal.

How will she earn a living?

"I'm certified to handle divorces," she answered.