Martinez v. State, 04-93-00776-CR
Decision Date | 05 July 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 04-93-00776-CR,04-93-00776-CR |
Citation | 907 S.W.2d 34 |
Parties | Pete Ayala MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Roy R. Barrera, Jr., Nicholas & Barrera, P.C., San Antonio, for appellant.
Angela Moore, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, San Antonio, for appellee.
Before LOPEZ, STONE and DUNCAN, JJ.
Pete Ayala Martinez pleaded nolo contendere, pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain agreement, to a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial judge denied Martinez's application for deferred adjudication and, in accordance with the plea, sentenced Martinez to a three-year prison term. Martinez appeals on four points of error, all of which argue that his plea was involuntary: (1) Martinez's plea was involuntary because he was not admonished on the range of punishment, as required by article 26.13(1), TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.; (2) Martinez's plea was involuntary because he was not admonished regarding the possibility of deportation if he was not a United States citizen; (3) Martinez's plea was involuntary because he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (4) Martinez's plea was involuntary because he was not admonished that he was not eligible for court-ordered probation. We hold that our jurisdiction extends only to one argument under Martinez's first and second points of error, which we overrule. We dismiss the remainder of Martinez's first and second points of error, as well as his third and fourth points of error, for want of jurisdiction. The judgment and sentence are, therefore, affirmed.
At the outset, we must address the State's arguments that we have no jurisdiction to consider any aspect of Martinez's appeal. The State first argues that, because Martinez's notice of appeal is a general notice that states simply that Martinez appeals "the judgment and sentence" of the court, it is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court to consider the voluntariness of Martinez's plea. See Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) ( ); TEX.R.APP.P. Rule 40(b)(1) ( )(emphasis added).
This court has previously held that a defendant's failure to comply with Rule 40(b)(1), TEX.R.APP.P., restricts him to jurisdictional defects or errors on appeal. Hernandez v. State, 894 S.W.2d 807, 809 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1994, pet. filed); Robinson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1994, no pet.). However, neither Hernandez nor Robinson dealt with the issue of whether the voluntariness of a plea is jurisdictional or an exception to Rule 40(b)(1). We do so in this case.
Plainly, voluntariness is not jurisdictional; it goes neither to the trial court's jurisdiction over the defendant's person nor to the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter. See Lyon, 872 S.W.2d at 736. Nor can it be said that Rule 40(b)(1) excepts voluntariness from its operation. Certainly it does not do so expressly, and we believe we are constrained to hold that it does not do so by implication. See Lyon, 872 S.W.2d at 733-34 ( ). We therefore hold that the voluntariness of a negotiated plea is neither jurisdictional nor an exception to Rule 40(b)(1).
In this case, however, the jurisdictional issue is more complicated, because the trial judge granted Martinez's motion for permission to appeal. This motion, filed by Martinez's counsel, stated that Martinez the court's "judgment and sentence." However, the order granting this motion does not expressly incorporate the stated ground.
We construe the order as impliedly incorporating the stated ground. Even then, however, the fact that permission to appeal was granted is not incorporated or reflected in the notice of appeal, as required by Rule 40(b)(1). The next issue requiring decision, therefore, is whether we may consider the order granting permission to appeal when this fact is not incorporated or reflected in the notice of appeal. Clearly, prior to Lyon, this court was required to consider permission to appeal reflected in the record but not in the notice of appeal. See Riley v. State, 825 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (en banc). However, in this situation, jurisdiction was limited to the grounds stated in the order granting permission to appeal. Id.
We believe a careful reading of Lyon indicates that we are still authorized to go beyond the notice of appeal and determine whether permission to appeal is reflected in the appellate record as a whole. We derive this authorization from the Lyon Court's having done so. See Lyon, 872 S.W.2d at 736. Accordingly, we hold that Riley survives Lyon, and Martinez has adequately preserved his right to appeal the voluntariness of his plea on the ground stated in his motion, i.e., that he "could not hear nor read the admonishments."
We are next faced with the problem, however, that Martinez's points of error, as stated, complain not of his failure to hear or read the admonishments, but that no admonishments were in fact given. We note, however, that under these points of error Martinez argues that he could not read or understand the plea papers. Accordingly, under the rule of liberal interpretation of points of error "to obtain a just, fair and equitable adjudication of the rights of the litigants," 1 we will consider Martinez's first and second points of error to the extent they argue that he could not read or understand the plea papers. Beyond that, Martinez's first and second points of error are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 55 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) ( ).
Martinez's third point of error, which raises ineffective assistance of counsel, is clearly outside the scope of our jurisdiction. Ineffectiveness of trial counsel is not a jurisdictional issue. Lyon, 872 S.W.2d at 736. Since Martinez was not granted permission to appeal on this ground, we are without jurisdiction to consider it. We therefore dismiss Martinez's third point of error. See Metzger, 892 S.W.2d at 55.
Martinez's fourth point of error contends that his plea was involuntary because the trial judge failed to admonish him that he was not eligible for court-ordered probation. Since Martinez was not granted permission to appeal on this ground, we are without jurisdiction to consider it. We therefore dismiss Martinez's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Luera v. State
...stated on record that it would permit appeal); Salinas v. State, 9 S.W.3d 338, 338-39 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Martinez v. State, 907 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, no pet.); Nite v. State, 882 S.W.2d 587, 589-90 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.); but see......
-
Moss v. State
...189-91 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet. h.) (neither jurisdictional issue nor exception to requirements of Rule 40(b)(1)); Martinez v. State, 907 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1995, no pet.) (same). But see Forcha v. State, 894 S.W.2d 506, 509 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, ......
-
Fontenot v. State
...to hold that it does not do so by implication. Lyon, 872 S.W.2d at 736; Davis, 870 S.W.2d at 45-46; see Martinez v. State, 907 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1995, pet. filed); Alfaro v. State, 904 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1995, no pet.). We, therefore, hold that because......
-
Tillman v. State
...on the grounds raised under his points of error, we are without jurisdiction to consider them. See Martinez v. State, 907 S.W.2d 34, 35-37 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1995, pet. filed) (court of appeals without jurisdiction to consider failure to give admonishments under TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. ......