Whether trial counsel's failure to investigate and discover impeachment evidence against a key prosecution witness before a defendant accepts a plea agreement constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington

Charged with child sex offenses, petitioner insisted he was innocent and would not plead guilty. While preparing for trial, the State disclosed that the outcry witness had “a record” and “did her time.” Defense counsel did not investigate the witness’s criminal history. She had federal convictions and received mental health treatment as a condition of release. Petitioner did not know this information or its potential use at trial when he agreed to plead no contest for 16 years in prison. The state habeas court concluded that counsel were not ineffective in failing to investigate this impeachment evidence because they were in plea discussions when they learned it may exist. Lower courts are divided over the scope of counsel’s duty to investigate impeachment evidence before a defendant pleads. At issue is when the complete failure to investigate potential impeachment evidence can be strategic. Although it can be sound to advise a defendant to plead quickly, Premo v. Moore , 562 U.S. 115 (2011), this Court has not addressed when counsel’s duty to investigate ends, especially in the “late plea” context. The question presented is: I. Whether trial counsel’s failure to investigate and discover impeachment evidence against a key prosecution witness before a defendant accepts a plea agreement constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). ii RELATED CASES • State of Texas v. Baggett , No. CR16000155-H, 347th District Court, Nueces County, Texas. Judgment entered September 22, 2016. • Ex parte Baggett , No. CR16000155-H(1), 347th District Court, Nueces County, Texas. Findings and Order entered April 14, 2025. • Ex parte Baggett , No. WR-96,337-01, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Judgment entered May 14, 2025.