An inmate who claims the entire plea-bargaining system in Texas is unconstitutional lost his first appeal on the issue Tuesday.

But his attorney is promising to take the litigation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We're not going to let this go. We think it's too important," said Stone & Stone partner John Stone of San Angelo, promising an appeal for his client, Austin Ray Carpenter. "The process that's been followed shouldn't be tolerated."

The appeal has already spawned other legal proceedings related to Stone and his wife, Patricia, who also represents Carpenter.

The lawyer-spouses filed a lawsuit against Tom Green County and its two local district attorneys. They also filed a grievance against one of those prosecutors, 51st District Attorney Allison Palmer, alleging she retaliated against Patricia Stone in her other criminal-defense clients' cases. Palmer denies the allegations.

Palmer, whose office prosecuted Carpenter, said that legal challenges to plea bargains are nothing new, and they tend to go nowhere.

"There's a long history of attacks on plea bargains, and there's a long history of affirming them," she said. "We agree with the ruling. It's entirely reasonable and appropriate."

Carpenter's appeal

Carpenter pleaded guilty in 2016 to felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to seven years of probation. But the state alleged he committed new offenses, and a court revoked his probation, adjudicated him guilty of the assault charge, and sentenced him to 13 years in prison.

Among other things, Carpenter claimed in his appeal that he was imprisoned without bail for a year before trial, with bad representation from three subsequent court-appointed counsel. His confinement pressured him into entering the state's plea deal under duress, he claimed.

Carpenter argued in his appellate brief that the Texas Constitution mandates that every criminal defendant get a speedy, public jury trial, but he claimed he and 95% of Texas inmates never get a jury trial. He also questioned how Texas law can allow defendants to waive their right to a trial when they enter a plea.

"It is not an option. It is not waiverable. It is not negotiable," said the brief.

The Third Court, noting that Carpenter's appeal stems from his probation revocation proceeding, overruled his challenges to his original plea-deal proceeding.

"Claims of error in the original plea proceeding must be appealed when the conditions of deferred adjudication are originally imposed," said the Third Court opinion, which also overruled Carpenter's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Alleged retaliation

Carpenter's motion for sanctions in the appeal–which the Third Court denied–alleged his attorneys, the Stones, have faced retaliation for raising the argument that plea bargains are unconstitutional.

The Stones claimed Palmer's office stopped offering plea deals to Patricia Stone's other criminal-defense clients unless the defense attorney first signed an agreement that said she believed that plea bargains are constitutional. Patricia Stone would not sign because she argued that doing so would undermine the arguments in Carpenter's appeal. The Stones added that they have stopped practicing criminal-defense law in Tom Green County because of it.

The Stones also filed a pending grievance against Palmer with the State Bar of Texas, claiming the same conduct violated attorney disciplinary rules.

On Oct. 1, Patricia Stone raised similar allegations in a federal First-Amendment lawsuit against Tom Green County, Palmer and 119th District Attorney John Best.

"The purpose of this retaliatory campaign is to silence any attorney who attempts to challenge the plea-bargaining system on which defendants rely so that they will not have to defend against these challenges in court," said the original complaint in Stone v. Tom Green County, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Meanwhile prosecutor Palmer said she denied the allegations that she violated disciplinary rules or the law. She claimed in a response to the grievance that the Stones' complaint is frivolous, as are the numerous motions for sanctions the Stones have filed.

"We just want her to assure the court, and us, that she appropriately advised her clients of their rights," Palmer said. "I deny that that in any way violates anything. I believe it's asking her to make sure that she's conducting herself in constitutionally appropriate ways."