Ex-San Antonio Attorney's Guilty Plea Overturned on Appeal

Federal court finds judge failed to properly explain maximum sentence before plea deal

Published on Feb. 5, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Chris Pettit, a disgraced former San Antonio attorney serving a 50-year prison sentence for swindling his law clients out of tens of millions of dollars, has had his guilty plea thrown out by a federal appeals court. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court judge failed to correctly inform Pettit of the maximum possible penalties he faced when he pleaded guilty, affecting his 'strategic position' at the plea hearing.

Why it matters

This ruling could have significant implications for Pettit's case, potentially leading to a new trial or plea bargain. It also raises questions about the responsibility of judges to ensure defendants fully understand the consequences of their pleas, especially in high-profile fraud cases involving large sums of money and lengthy sentences.

The details

Pettit had pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud and three counts of money laundering, with the judge sentencing him to 50 years in prison and ordering him to pay $106.3 million in restitution to his victims. However, the appeals court found that the judge incorrectly informed Pettit that the maximum penalty he faced was 30 years, when in reality the maximum was 90 years based on the sentences for each crime running consecutively.

  • Pettit is currently serving his 50-year sentence in a correctional facility in Otisville, New York.
  • Pettit is not scheduled to be released until January 1, 2065, when he would be 97 years old.
  • The appeals court ruling was issued on February 5, 2026.

The players

Chris Pettit

A disgraced former San Antonio attorney who pleaded guilty to swindling his law clients out of tens of millions of dollars and is currently serving a 50-year prison sentence.

Judge Orlando Garcia

The U.S. District Court judge who originally sentenced Pettit and has been ordered to reconsider the case by the appeals court.

Kristin Kimmelman

Pettit's public defender who argued before the appeals court that the judge's incorrect explanation of the maximum sentence affected Pettit's 'strategic position' at the plea hearing.

Christopher Mangels

The Assistant U.S. Attorney who argued unsuccessfully before the appeals court that Pettit was aware of the correct maximum sentence.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“He was 56 years old and with the admonishment being a max of 30 years, conceivably he could be out with good time and whatnot to at least a halfway house in his 70s. With a maximum of 90 years, he's going to die in prison.”

— Kristin Kimmelman, Pettit's public defender

What’s next

The case has been sent back to Judge Garcia's court for further proceedings, which could potentially lead to a new trial or plea bargain for Pettit.

The takeaway

This ruling highlights the importance of judges clearly explaining the potential consequences of a plea deal to defendants, especially in complex fraud cases with lengthy possible sentences. It also raises concerns about the fairness of Pettit's original conviction and sentence, which may need to be revisited.