EX PARTE SPACEK v. << (2023)

DISSENTING OPINION

The trial court stacked Applicant's sentences. She claims that her plea was involuntary because she would have accepted the State's plea offer if she had known her sentences could be stacked. Trial counsel acknowledges that he told Applicant the sentences would run concurrently, and he says she would have accepted the plea offer if he had correctly advised her. The Court grants Applicant a new trial.

But after Applicant filed this writ application, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc order ordering that the sentences run concurrently. It appears that Applicant has received the sentence she thought she would receive, and her involuntary-plea claim now must fail. I would dismiss the application as moot.

I respectfully dissent.

Keller, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Yeary, Keel and Slaughter, JJ., joined.