Kirk v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | 1554-96,Nos. 1553-96,s. 1553-96 |
| Citation | 942 S.W.2d 624 |
| Parties | Marvin Leroy KIRK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kerry P. Fitzgerald, Dallas, for appellant.
John Vance, District Attorney, Dallas, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
The trial court accepted Appellant's pleas of nolo contendere to two offenses of delivery of cocaine, found sufficient evidence to support the pleas, deferred a finding of guilt, and placed Appellant on ten years' deferred adjudication probation. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Kirk v. State, Nos. 05-92-01806-CR & 05-92-01807-CR (Tex.App.--Dallas, delivered September 5, 1996).
On appeal, Appellant raised three points of error. The Court of Appeals held it was without jurisdiction to hear the appeals because Appellant did not appeal a ruling on a pretrial motion or have the trial court's permission to appeal. The Court of Appeals cited our opinion in Dillehey v. State, 815 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), for the proposition that Article 44.01(j), V.A.C.C.P. grants unadjudicated defendants a limited right to appeal only rulings on pretrial motions. Dillehey, however, did not hold that unadjudicated defendants were limited in what they could appeal, only that they could appeal under Article 44.02, V.A.C.C.P. Dillehey entered into a negotiated plea of guilty; therefore, under the proviso to Art. 44.02, he was limited to appealing with the trial court's permission or to rulings on pretrial motions. 1 However, since Appellant entered his pleas without a plea bargain, the Rule 40(b)(1) restrictions on appeals of negotiated pleas do not apply. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain Appellant's appeal.
Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petition, vacate the Court of Appeals' order dismissing Appellant's appeal, and remand the cause to that court to consider Appellant's appeal.
1 The proviso was repealed with the enactment of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The procedures for a defendant appealing from a negotiated plea of guilty are now governed by Tex.R.App.Pro. 40(b)(1).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargesheimer v. State
...(citing TEX.R.APP. P. 25.2(b)(3); TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.01(j); Vidaurri, 49 S.W.3d at 884-85; Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Watson, 924 S.W.2d at 713-15)). In Woods, we concluded that since the sentence fell within the punishment range for the offense to whi......
-
Smith v. State, 05-91-01341-CR
...Supp.1997)). The amendment also gave defendants on deferred adjudication a limited right to appeal. Id; see also Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (discussing Dillehey and the statutory predecessor to TEX.R.APP. P. Therefore, deferred adjudication orders are appealable ......
-
Robinson v. State
...Exceptions to this general rule include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) cert......
-
Kirk v. State
...Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our order dismissing the appeals and remanded the causes to this Court. See Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). We read the court's opinion to hold that a defendant who enters a plea of guilty without a plea bargain and then receiv......