Jack v. State
Decision Date | 09 March 1994 |
Docket Number | 514-93,Nos. 513-93,s. 513-93 |
Citation | 871 S.W.2d 741 |
Parties | Alex Larry JACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Harry J. Fleming and Charles W. Peckham, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Karen A. Clark, and Julian Ramirez, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the Court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant pled guilty to two instances of aggravated sexual assault and the trial court, after finding him guilty of both, assessed punishment at confinement for sixty years in each cause. The convictions were affirmed in a single unpublished opinion. Jack v. State, (Tex.App.--Houston [14th], Nos. A14-92-00685-CR and C14-92-00687-CR, 1993 WL 93500, delivered April 1, 1993). We granted appellant's petitions for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that appellant's pleas of guilty without an agreed recommendation as to punishment waived his right to appellate review of nonjurisdictional issues arising subsequent to the entry of the guilty pleas.
Appellant entered guilty pleas on March 30, 1992, pursuant to an agreement by which he would plead guilty, a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) would be conducted, the trial court would assess punishment without an agreed recommendation, and other accusations against appellant would be dismissed. Accordingly, the trial court deferred finding appellant guilty pending preparation of the PSI. Appellant filed applications for probation in both causes.
The trial court reconvened the cause on May 27, 1992, at which time the pre-sentence report was admitted into evidence. Immediately thereafter the State called two witnesses to testify of unadjudicated extraneous offenses allegedly committed 17 years before. Objections to this testimony were overruled. In imposing sentence the trial judge stated that part of the testimony he considered was that of the two extraneous offense witnesses. Appellant immediately gave notice of appeal. On appeal he complained of admission of the testimony concerning the unadjudicated extraneous offenses.
The Court of Appeals held that where a plea of guilty is voluntarily and understandingly entered without the benefit of a plea bargain, all nonjurisdictional defects, including claimed deprivations of federal due process, are waived. Finding that the errors alleged by appellant were waived by his nonnegotiated guilty pleas, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions without reaching the merits of appellant's contentions. Thus the court of appeals disposed of the appeal under the so-called Helms rule. Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
Appellant does not dispute the general rule that nonjurisdictional defects are waived by pleas of either guilty or nolo contendere. He argues that the rule does not apply to nonjurisdictional complaints arising after the entry of the plea. The State replies that while there may be conflicting authority from some of the courts of appeals, this Court has squarely addressed the issue and decided it adversely to appellant's contention in King v. State, 687 S.W.2d 762, 766 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). But King does not hold that a nonnegotiated plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects, whether occurring prior to the entry of the plea or after. In King itself the matter appealed was a pre-trial motion to quash the indictment. In articulating the holding of Helms, the King Court failed to limit its application to waiver of nonjurisdictional errors occurring prior to entry of the plea. Id., at 764. That does not mean the Court "squarely addressed" the question whether nonjurisdictional error occurring after entry of the plea is waived. There was no call to address that question in King, and, other than Judge Clinton's concurring opinion, pointing out that the rule, imported from federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, does not bar appeal of asserted errors at or after the entry of the plea, we did not.
The federal rule, from which the Helms rule derived, is that a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects "that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea." Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, at 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, at 1608, 36 L.Ed.2d 235, at 243 (1973). As Judge Clinton observed in his concurring opinion in King:
Id., at 767. It would be odd, indeed, to hold that by pleading guilty on March 30th, appellant waived error that was not to occur until almost two months later, on May 27th.
Although the Court has frequently failed fully to articulate the rule, as in King, we have only actually applied it to hold that a nonnegotiated guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects occurring prior to the entry of the guilty plea. See Fierro v. State, 437 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Soto v. State, 456 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Gonzales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Andrade v. State, 470 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Salinas v. State, 478 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Utsman v. State, 485 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Runo v. State, 556 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Prochaska v. State, 587 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Morgan v. State, 608 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Kass v. State, 642 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) ( ); Wheeler v. State, 628 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Dees v. State, 676 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). Indeed, in many cases we have decided the merits of claims of asserted error occurring at or after entry of a nonnegotiated guilty plea even though in many of those same cases we held that asserted error occurring prior to the entry of the plea was waived under Helms. See Fierro v. State, supra ( ); Soto v. State, supra (same); Andrade v. State, supra ( ); Salinas v. State, supra ( ); Utsman v. State, supra ( ); Helms v. State, supra ( ); Decker v. State, 570 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) ( ); Prochaska v. State, supra (same as Fierro and Soto ); Thornton v. State, 601 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) ( ); Wheeler v. State, supra ( ); Bender v. State, 758 S.W.2d 278 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGlothlin v. State
...with the DeGarmo doctrine. 3. Appellant next contends the DeGarmo doctrine should be harmonized with our holding in Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Cr.App.1994). In Jack, we held that a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects occurring prior to the guilty plea. Jack, 871 S.W.2d ......
-
Guerrero v. State
...Young test requiring a written pre-trial motion, a jurisdictional defect, or trial court permission do not apply. See Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (applying predecessor to Rule 25.2(b)(3)). Additionally, we cannot say that Guerrero's conviction "was rendered indepe......
-
Ramirez v. State
...an error that occurred after the entry of his plea, and as such the Helms/Young rule does not apply. See Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex. Crim.App.1994) (per curiam) (noting that Helms rule did not limit appeal of asserted error "occurring at or after entry of a nonnegotiated guilty......
-
Dorsey v. State, 13-99-720-CR
...has an unlimited right to appeal. 3 F. Maloney (ed.), et al., TEXAS CRIMINAL PRACTICE GUIDE 70.07 (2000) (citing Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 743-44 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Lemmons v. State, 818 S.W.2d 58, 60-61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). However, a "valid plea of guilty... forfeits the rig......
-
Pretrial Motions
...the benefit of a plea bargain (open plea) may raise claims of error occurring at or after the entry of the guilty plea. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Waivers of rights executed pursuant to CCP Art. 1.15 apply only to the guilt stage, and do not constitute a waiver of......
-
Pretrial Motions
...the benefit of a plea bargain (open plea) may raise claims of error occurring at or after the entry of the guilty plea. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Waivers of rights executed pursuant to CCP Art. 1.15 apply only to the guilt stage, and do not constitute a waiver of......
-
Pretrial Motions
...the benefit of a plea bargain (open plea) may raise claims of error occurring at or after the entry of the guilty plea. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. Waivers of rights executed pursuant to CCP Art. 1.15 apply only to the guilt stage, and do not constitute a waiver of the ri......
-
Pretrial Motions
...the benefit of a plea bargain (open plea) may raise claims of error occurring at or after the entry of the guilty plea. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Waivers of rights executed pursuant to CCP Art. 1.15 apply only to the guilt stage, and do not constitute a waiver of......