ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER PETTIT, MAY HAVE GIVEN JOHN DOE THE WIN

The context here is important.  The federal court of appeals just tossed Pettit's 50-year sentence based on federal Judge Orlando Garcia's inadvertent mistake of not correcting the impression the maximum sentence was 30 years and not 90.

The language in the federal court of appeals opinion, especially in the end, is eloquent.  But it all goes to the same issues in the John Doe case.

First on Judge Orlando Garcia. He is no Gabby Garcia or Luis Saenz.  This was an honest mistake.  When you read the posted transcript, it comes down to an honest mistake. During plea bargains sometimes judges believing the plea ends the case, just reads the perfunctory associated language needed to confirm the plea bargain.

In this case the language seems to suggest a maximum sentence of 30 years.  It was a question of concurrent or consecutive time to be served.  One allows for multiple 30 years sentences to be served at the same time, the other provides once you finish one, you start the next.

In my opinion Mr. Pettit knew the difference and sat on the issue with his lawyer to allow for the appeal.  But this is key to justice.  It does not matter if Pettit as an experienced lawyer knew he was facing 90 years; judge Orlando Garcia got it wrong.  And also, more importantly the US Attorney failed at their job. 

It is probably a win with no meaning.  He will be resentence based on a maximum of 30 years.  He will be approaching 86 when he gets out, assuming he lives that long. 

The reason I am so certain this was an honest mistake by Judge Orlando Garcia is his long history as a judge.  He led the battle in Texas to preserve the right to same sex marriage.  He is loyal to the law, but not infallible. 

THE KEY TO THE JOHN DOE CASE

"Because the words used at each stage of this case are of critical importance to Pettit’s understanding of his plea, we recount and quote from the record in some detail."  John Doe cannot do this without access to the record, and the Court of Criminal Appeals knows this.  All documents being filed with Chief Judge Garcia, will be copied to the FBI office in Austin asking for a criminal review of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

US v. Pettit, p. 2, Click for Opinion

The Court of Criminal Appeals denied John Doe access to the record to argue his Petition for Discretionary Review.   This goes against its own well established case law.  When the entire court was asked to rule on the issue, the court ordered the motion put in the file, but not to be ruled on.

This case at so many levels is so ripe for federal review it cannot fail.

I have said it will be filed in Austin.  The Pettit case just opened the case to near guarantee of federal review.

You begin with two motions to the Chief Judge of the Western District, which is Judge Orlando Garcia.  One, John Doe can ask he be given a court appointed attorney to help him with the lawsuit, as indigent.  Two, he can ask for permission to file electronically.  In both these motions all the key evidence is presented to Judge Orlando Garcia.

Judge Garcia will know for sure John Doe was denied any notice of what he was pleading no contest to, and this according to the federal court of appeals is reversible error.  And if any judge in the Western District knows this it is Judge Orlando Garcia.  He will not throw himself under the bus for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  They are without a doubt engaged in a criminal conspiracy to conceal the record which proves the criminal conspiracy. 

John Doe could not have knowingly agreed to get a GED when he knows he is too intellectually disabled to secure a GED.  He cannot comply with the terms of the plea.  The record shows Bobby Lerma ordered his client to commit felony perjury when he claimed no history of mental illness.  Just the day before at Gabby Garcia's insistence Korina Barraza filed the motion to compel a mental health review.

"We exercise our discretion to correct this error. Under plain-error review, we may correct errors that “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985) (quoting Atkinson, 297 U.S. at 160). This case presents such an error. The right to a jury trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is a _____________________ 3This would be a different case if, for example, the district court at sentencing had more clearly articulated that the maximum penalty was 90 years and confirmed in a colloquy with Pettit that he wanted to go forward with his guilty plea and sentencing. 13 Case: 24-50250 Document: 144-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/05/2026 No. 24-50250 “constitutional protection[] of surpassing importance.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476 (2000). Consequently, “[t]he integrity of the plea bargaining system,” which results in a defendant relinquishing that important right, is “vital to our national system of criminal justice.” United States v. Palmer, 456 F.3d 484, 491 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Ashburn, 20 F.3d 1336, 1347 (5th Cir. 1994)). “Maintaining that integrity requires diligently policing its failure to function properly.” Id. So our discretion is properly exercised here."

pp. 13-14

The beginning of the opinion makes clear a criminal defendant's rights can only be vindicated by access to the record.  The Court of Criminal Appeals has denied John Doe access to the record. 

FOR NOW, I HAVE TO GET BACK TO MY CASE AGAINST THE COB

Federal pleadings can be taxing.  I have no problem with the burden placed on the litigants, but it has become a minefield which allows judges to deny justice not on the merit, but because of failure to comply with a local rule.

The city has a dismissal pending, which if granted sends the case back to state court because the § 1983 will no longer be pending.  Normally, I would not consider appealing any ruling by Judge Olvera, but whether my response is late or not it must comply with the law, which it does not.  Further the Motion to Dismiss does not align with the pleading. 

We are all waiting on whether he will remand the case to state court.  That should be handled first.  But we have a bigger problem.  We are coming up on a deadline where all parties have to prepare for pretrial.  It will be expensive.  

My goal is to be caught up with my federal case by Tuesday.  But timelines in criminal cases take priority.