Harrelson v. State
Decision Date | 08 May 1985 |
Docket Number | Nos. 494-84,495-84,s. 494-84 |
Citation | 692 S.W.2d 659 |
Parties | Charles V. HARRELSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John T. Garcia A., Fernando Chacon, El Paso, for appellant.
Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty. and Linda Jurewicz and James B. Dowling, Asst. Dist. Attys., El Paso, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted upon his pleas of nolo contendere to the offense of possession of cocaine, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, and to the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court sentenced appellant to sentences of 40 years and 10 years, respectively, and ordered such sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal appellant contended that the trial court erroneously accepted his pleas conditioned upon appellant's right to appeal certain pretrial motions in a case which did not fall within the ambit of Article 44.02, V.A.C.C.P. The Eighth Court of Appeals in El Paso agreed with appellant, and reversed and remanded for a new trial. Harrelson v. State, 668 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1984). 1 We granted the State's petition for discretionary review in order to review the court of appeals' ruling.
These causes were called for trial on the morning of December 7, 1981. At that time a pretrial hearing was conducted on appellant's motions to dismiss under V.A.C.C.P., Article 32A.02, the Speedy Trial Act, and to suppress evidence allegedly obtained pursuant to an illegal search. Both motions were overruled in each cause. During entry of the pleas the following exchanges occurred:
There is no dispute that appellant's pleas in this case were non-negotiated. We therefore find controlling our recent decision in Christal v. State, 692 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) ( ).
In Christal the Court reiterated the now well established rule that, while Article 44.02, supra, will not operate to limit the right of appeal pursuant to a non-negotiated plea, nevertheless, the Helms rule will, in the sense that it denies the accused a meaningful review of any claim not directed to the jurisdiction of the trial court. 2 See Prochaska v. State, 587 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) ; Cleveland v. State, 588 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, nn. 8 and 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); King v. State, 687 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). 3
It is clear that in the instant causes, as in Christal, supra, the appellant pled nolo contendere with the understanding that the issues raised in his pretrial motions would be preserved for appeal. These motions do not go to the jurisdiction of the convicting court, however. Therefore, in the absence of a plea bargain, the Helms rule renders the appellant's understanding erroneous. We cannot say that appellant entered into his plea voluntarily or knowingly. Christal, supra.
The State contends that by virtue of this Court's decision in Martin v. State, 652 S.W.2d 777 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), appellant's motions to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act were cognizable on appeal in spite of the lack of a plea bargain situation in these causes. In this the State is mistaken.
In Martin this Court overruled that line of cases which had held that Article 32A.02, § 3 operated as an exception to the "general rule," under Article 44.02, supra, that any matters raised by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flowers v. State
...217 (1890); Harris v. State, 17 Tex.Ct.App. 559 (1885); Saunders v. State, 10 Tex.Ct.App. 336 (1881); see also Harrelson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Christal v. State, 692 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Kilpper v. State, 491 S.W.2d 117 Second, in plea bargained cases under Ar......
-
Lemmons v. State
...however, the "conditional plea" notion remained viable, e.g., Broddus v. State, 693 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Harrelson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Christal v. State, 692 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Cr.App.1985)--albeit over outcry by our late Brother Teague in Broddus, at 461-462. ......
-
State v. Kelley
...that the merits of a pretrial motion will be preserved for appeal, defendant's plea is not knowing and voluntary.6 Harrelson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Silva v. State, 986 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.); Gonzales v. State, 944 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex. A......
-
Shallhorn v. State
...that her plea of guilty was not entered voluntarily or knowingly. Christal v. State, 692 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Harrelson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Broddus v. State, 693 S.W.2d 459 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the case is remanded to the tria......