Martin v. State, A14-89-01138-CR
Decision Date | 09 August 1990 |
Docket Number | No. A14-89-01138-CR,A14-89-01138-CR |
Parties | Earl Arthur MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ronnie G. Harrison, Houston, for appellant.
Linda A. West, Houston, for appellee.
Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and JUNELL and MURPHY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a theft conviction of clothing with a value of less than $750. Because of two prior misdemeanor theft convictions, the offense was boosted to a third degree felony, which was then enhanced by a 1983 conviction for aggravated assault. The court sentenced appellant to ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. Appellant brings six points of error. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for new trial.
Appellant was indicted in May of 1989 for stealing four dresses with a value of less than $750 from a Neiman Marcus department store. Appellant subsequently filed two pretrial motions: a motion to quash enhancement paragraphs and a motion to quash indictments. The appellant did not enter into a plea bargain. Before entering his plea, the following dialogue took place between the trial court judge and defense counsel:
The discussion later continued:
Appellant subsequently plead guilty to the offense. After his conviction, he perfected this appeal.
In his first point of error appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in denying appellant's motion for a new trial. According to the appellant, appellant, his counsel, and the trial judge labored under the false presumption that Martin could appeal the rulings on his pretrial motions, making his plea of guilty contingent on a misconception, and justifying reversal. We agree.
In Shallhorn v. State, 732 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), the Court of Criminal Appeals quoted a discussion between the defense counsel in that cause and the trial judge. This discussion was similar to the conversation between Martin's counsel and the judge in the instant case:
Id. Subsequent to the admonishment, defense counsel continued:
Although the Shallhorn court noted that the law provides that "where there is no plea bargain and a plea of guilty is voluntarily and understandingly made all nonjurisdiction defects including claimed deprivations of federal due process are waived", the court affirmed the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversal of the conviction. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that because of the erroneous assumption of the parties and the trial judge, the plea of guilty was not entered voluntarily or knowingly, and the conviction was improper. Id.
Similarly, in Davila v. State, 767 S.W.2d 205, 205 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.), Davila filed two pretrial motions, both of which were denied by the trial court. No plea bargain was entered into; however, the trial judge expressly stated that the appellant could appeal the rulings on the motions subsequent to his convictions. Id. at 206. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals concluded that where it is evident that the appellant, appellant's counsel, and the trial court labored under the false impression that such an appeal was in order, the plea of guilty is not voluntary or knowing and the cause will be reversed and remanded to the trial court. Id. (citations omitted).
In the case before us the State's only argument in defense of the judgment is that the record is insufficient to show that the appellant's plea was specifically conditioned upon his belief that the trial court's adverse rulings on pretrial motions would be reviewed on appeal. In support of this contention, the State cites the Shallhorn dialogue, contending that it is much more specific than that between Martin's counsel and his trial judge. We do not perceive this great distinction between the dialogues in the Shallhorn cas...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skillern v. State
...sufficient proof to support the finality of the prior conviction alleged for enhancement. Wilson, 671 S.W.2d at 526; Martin v. State, 795 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). Under such circumstances, an accused cannot be heard to complain on appeal that the evide......
-
Donald v. State
...not shown prejudice. III. CONCLUSION Appellant's sole issue is overruled. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.1 But see See Martin v. State , 795 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.) (holding that a defendant is not required to plead "true" or "not true" to alle......
-
Donald v. State, 14-16-00232-CR
...not as punishment enhancements, appellant was not required to plead "true" or "not true" to the prior convictions. See Martin v. State, 795 S.W.2d 289, 292 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). His pleas of "true," however, were stipulations to historical facts. See Harvey v. Stat......
-
Jones v. State, C14-91-01374-CR
...564; Shallhorn v. State, 732 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Harrelson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Martin v. State, 795 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.); Davila v. State, 767 S.W.2d 205, 206 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi, no pet.). In th......