David v. State
Decision Date | 18 December 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 796-84,796-84 |
Parties | Michael Ray DAVID, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jimmy James, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and J. Harvey Hudson and Elaine Bratton, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
On June 11, 1979, appellant pled nolo contendere before the court to the offense of sexual abuse of a child. Pursuant to the provisions of Art. 42.12, Sec.3d(a), V.A.C.C.P., the trial court deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and placed appellant on probation for five years.
On February 9, 1983, the trial court proceeded to adjudication of guilt, revoked probation, and assessed ten years.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) affirmed in a published opinion. David v. State, 681 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.App.1984--Houston [14th dist.] ). The court of appeals held that, by failing to move for adjudication of guilt within 30 days after entering his plea and the trial court's deferment of adjudication, appellant waived the right to appeal any constitutional deprivations that may have occurred in the original plea proceedings. We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to examine this holding.
After the trial court adjudicated appellant's guilt and assessed punishment, appellant gave notice of appeal and filed a pauper's oath. On February 9, 1983, the court appointed counsel to prosecute the appeal and ordered the court reporter to prepare a statement of facts without charge to appellant. See Art. 40.09, Sec. 5, V.A.C.C.P.
It was later discovered that the court reporter had destroyed her notes of the original plea proceeding of June 11, 1979, and was therefore unable to transcribe those notes for appellant's use in his appeal. Appellant argued on appeal, and in this Court, that the statute permitting deferred adjudication defendants to appeal their conviction upon final adjudication (Art. 42.12, Sec. 3d(b), supra), and the statute permitting court reporters to destroy their notes after three years (former Art. 2324, V.A.C.S. 1 ) combine in the instant case to deprive him of the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and effective assistance of counsel on appeal under the Sixth Amendment (sic).
The court of appeals did not reach this issue. Instead, that court reasoned as follows:
Article 42.12, Sec. 3d(b) specifically provides that: "After an adjudication of guilt, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment, pronouncement of sentence, granting of probation, and defendant's appeal continue as if the adjudication of guilt had not been deferred." The court of appeals' holding abrogates this provision of the statute. We disavow the court of appeals' holding that appellant waived his right of appeal from the original plea proceedings.
We turn now to appellant's claim that former Art. 2324 operated to deprive him of a transcript of the original plea proceeding, and that this deprivation violates federal constitutional guaranties. The threshold question, accordingly, is whether the lack of a transcript is attributable to the operation of the statute, or to some other cause.
In his brief, appellate counsel asserts that he "filed his Designation of Record, requesting, among other things, a transcript of the court reporter's notes." The only reference to court reporter's notes in the designation of record is the following:
Counsel filed the designation of record on February 25, 1983.
On April 11, 1983, the District Clerk notified the parties that the record had been completed.
On April 14, 1983, the State filed an objection to the record on the ground that it did not contain a "Statement of facts of the June 11, 1979 hearing wherein the appellant pled nolo contendere." The State requested "that the Court withhold its approval of the record until a complete transcription of the court reporter's notes is contained therein; and that the Court direct the Attorney of record for Appellant to request an extension of time for the filing of such notes." The trial court ordered that the record would not be approved until it contained a complete transcription of the court reporter's notes, and ordered appellant's attorney to request an extension of time to file the notes. The order is dated 4-14-83. No requests for extension of time appear in the record.
On September 13, 1983, the State filed a motion to withdraw its objection to the record. The motion states that the court reporter no longer has the notes to the plea proceeding. The trial court's order states: "The State's Objection to the Record will be allowed to be withdrawn and the clerk may continue completing the record." The order is dated 9/14/83.
Appellant's objection "adopts and relies on for all purposes" the State's objection to the record. The trial court granted a hearing on appellant's objection. Nothing more of the hearing, if there was one, appears in the record.
Bearing the district clerk's file mark dated October 27, 1983, there appears in the record the following signed statement:
On October 28, 1983, the district clerk notified the parties of the "further completion" of the record.
On November 14, 1983, the trial court approved the record, noting: "neither [party] having filed and presented to the court in writing any objection to the record within 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Punu
...from the original plea proceedings in the event the state later proceeds to adjudication." Id. at 1026 (citing David v. State, 704 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)(en banc) (rejecting the court of appeals' finding that appellant "`waived any alleged defects in the original adjudicatio......
-
In re Punu, Interim Decision #3364
...appeal from the original plea proceedings in the event the state later proceeds to adjudication." Id. at 1026 (citing David v. State, 704 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)(en banc) (rejecting the court of appeals' finding that appellant "`waived any alleged defects in the original adju......
-
Ramirez v. State
...the time of the plea bargain and deferral of adjudication in connection with an appeal of an adjudication of guilt. David v. State, 704 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). This reliance is misplaced. In 1987, the Legislature enacted Article 44.01(j) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which ma......
-
Martinez-Montoya v. I.N.S.
...in the event the state later proceeds to adjudication. See Texas Code Crim.Proc., Art. 42.12, Sec. 3d(b); David v. State, 704 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (en banc ). Appellee alternatively argues that Martinez-Montoya's "conviction" is sufficiently final for immigration purposes because ......