NO. 07-07 -026 6-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER27, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ JAIME T REVINO, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 37 9 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF B EXA R CO UNT Y; TH NO . 200 4CR 6365; HO NO RA BLE B ER T RI CH AR DS ON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ON A BA TEMENT A ND R EMA ND Appel lan t J aime Trev ino , app eal s his conv icti on for ev adi ng detenti on in a v ehi cl e, enhanc ed. After ex amini ng the re cord and the tr ial court ’s cert ific ati on of appell ant’ s r ig ht to a p p e a l, we abate the appeal and re mand the ca se for furt her proceed ing s. SeeT e x. R. App. P. 25. 2(a)(2); 37. 1; 34 .5(c)(2); D ear s v . St ate, 154 S. W .3d 6 1 0, 61 4- 15 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 05). On S eptember

29, 2004, the t ri al cour t c onv ened a hear ing in appel lan t’ s c ase. As par t of a w ri tten ple a barg ain ag re ement for a probated sent ence or deferred adj udi cat ion ,2

appel lan t si g ned an ev ide nti ar y sti pul ati on jud ic ial ly admitti ng the offense of eva d ing detent ion i n a v ehi cl e, en hance d by pr ior v iol ati ons and entered a g uil ty ple a in open c our t. Bas ed upon the ple a and the s ti pul ati on, t he c our t c oncl uded t he ev ide nce w as suffici ent to es tabl is h g uil t butrefrai ned from findi ng appel la n t gui lty , pen din g se ntenc ing

. Senten ci ng w as post poned for an u nspec ified per iod

. One pag e of the ag re ement was a pre- pr int ed c heck li st that in par t prov ide d: If the court grants deferre d a dj udication, the State does not recommend any t erm o f years as p arto f th e pl ea agreemen t. A ll par ti es ag ree th at if deferred a dj udication is s ubsequently rev oked, Defenda nt may be sentenc ed to any

term of

y ears w ithin the range of punishment prov id ed by

lawfor t hi s o ff ense . (h ig hli g hti ng i n or ig ina l)

. This pag e furt her re ci ted that the p arti es ag re ed upon puni shment of “5 y ears” w it h the Sta te recommendi ng co mmunity su per v is ion

. A ty pew ri tten addendum more s peci fical ly ex press ed th e par

ti es’ barg ain . Here, t he Stat e re co m mended fiv e y ears c onfinement, probated for ei g ht years. Si g nific ant t o the presentdi sc uss ion , i t i ncl uded l ang uag e c ondi ti oni ng di spos it ion i n the ca se upon appel lan t’ s p ro mis e to tes ti fy ag ain st other parti es in other

prose cut ion s. The ag re ement lef t det ermin ation of

app ellant ’s p erforma nce o f this obligation e x clusiv ely to th e Sta te’s discretion (the Sta te is “the sole arbite r of [ app ellant ’s] goo d faith in the f ulf illmen t of this agreem ent ”). T he a greem entf urthe r p ro vid e d thatshou ld the State f ind ap pellan t’s per formance ins uff ic ien t, and so notify the tr ial court , t hen “ the a g re ement as to dis posi ti on in thi s cas e w il l be v oid ed and w it hdraw n,” and “t he sai d Jai me Trev ino w il l be s ubj ecttoPag e two, pa ra g ra ph tw o of the ty pew ri tten addendum of the a g re ement prov ide s 1 in it s e n t ire ty: 3 the f u l l ra n g e o f p u n i s h me n tfo r t h e o ffe n s e o f E v a d i n g D e t e n t i o n w i t h a V e h i c leEnhanc ed.” The par

ti es als o re q uest ed the cour t defer sent enci ng unti l appel lan t had an oppor tuni ty to per form. So m e 32 m o n th s la te r, on Ma y 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e tri a l co u rtco n ven e d a h e a rin g, a p p a re n tl y pre cip it a te d by ap p e lla n t’ s co n d u ctfo llo wing th e Se p te m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , h e a rin g. Spec ific a lly, on an uns peci fied dat e, i n anot her cr imi nal proceed ing , t he c our t found appel lan t g uil ty

of ag g ra v ated ro bbery a n d s entenc ed hi m to tw enty y ears’ co nfinement. At t he M ay

27, 2007, hear ing the Stat e arg ued t his fact, and ot her cr imes appel lan t allegedly com mitt ed su bseque nt to Sept em ber 29 , 200 4, rend ered him an unsa tisfacto ry w it ness for t he te sti monial role co ntempl ated by the par ti es’ pl ea ag re ement. In remarks a t t he hear ing , t he tr ial co urt ag re ed th at ap pel lan t v iol ated the p lea ag re ement, and ex press ed the concl usi on it w oul d not foll ow the ag re ement’ s t er ms. The cour t found app ell ant g uil ty of the ev adi ng ar re st w it h a mot or v ehi cl e enhan ced charg e, and i mposed a s entenc e i ncl udi ng ten y ears’ co nfinement. F ro m the re cord before us , i t i s n ot c le a r whe ther t he c our t dec lared th e pl ea ag re ement void , c hose not t o foll ow i ts ter ms, or

co ncl uded t he ag re ement, on breach by appel lan t, empow ered i ts dis posi ti on of a more onerous se n te n ce than re commended. W hen defense co unsel i nq uired of the cour t’ s i ntent ion to follo w

or re ject t he ag re ement, the j udg e re fe re n ce d lang uag e at pag e two, pa ra g ra ph two, of the ag re ement and 1Shoul d J aime T re vino fail to fulfill hi s o bli g ati ons under thi s Ag re ement, as deter mined by

the Stat e, the Stat e w il l infor m the Cou rtof suc h fail ure, t he ag re ement a s to dis posi ti on i n thi s c ase w il l be v oid ed and w it hdraw n, an d the s aid Ja ime Trev ino w il l be s ubj ect to t he full rang e of puni shmentfor t he of fense of Ev adin g Deten tion wi th a Ve hicle-Enh ance d. Add itiona lly , shou ld Jai me Trev ino fail to appear to tes ti fy w hen req uest ed bythe Stat e or fail to app ear for sente ncing in this cause , the agreeme nt as to dispositio n in this case wi ll be v oide d an d w ithdra w n, and t he said Jaim e T rev ino w ill be su bject to t he full rang e of p u n ish m e n t for the o ffense of Ev adi ng D etent ion w it h a Vehi cl e- Enhanc ed. 4 re spond ed, “ I’ m st il l w it hin the parameters o f t he ple a barg ain ” in sent enci ng appel lan t t o ten years’ co nfinement. The cour t end ed th e hear ing w it h admoni ti ons to ap pel lan t t hat h e had: 30 days to f ile notice of app eal, m otion for new trial. Permission to app eal. I suppo se the int er pretati on of t he ple a ag re ement c oul d be under rev iew by the F o u rt h C o u rt i f that was appeal ed. That woul d be up to them. I ’m n ot sure ho w

w e w ould –I do n’t kno w if it’s a pretrial motio n or it’s just someth ing –y ou c an di sc uss thatw it h your cl ien t .

. . . Howev er , t he c our

t t hen c erti fied appe ll ant h ad no ri g ht of ap peal bec ause the c ase w as a pl ea- barg ain ed c ase. T his Court no ted the certif icate o f app eal an d invi ted the pa rties to respo nd b efore cons ide ri ng its ju ri sdi cti on. Appel lan t res ponded w it h a req uestfor a batementand re mand for findi ng s o f fact and conc lus ion s of law co ncer nin g appel lan t’ s a ppel lat e r ig ht. On our re que stfo r a re sp o n se , t h e St a te res p o n d e d th a t itdo e s n o t o p p o se a b a te m e n t fo r f in d in gs of factand conc lus ion s o f law as req uest ed by

appel lan t.5

A tr ia l court is required to en ter a certif ication of a defend ant 's ri ght of

app eal in ev er y cas e that itente rs a j udg ment of g uil t or othe r appeal abl e order

. SeeTex . R . Ap p. P. 2 5.2( a) (2 ). R ule 25.2 (a )( 2) l imi ts an appella te court ’s j ur is dicti on ov er appeal s from ple a- barg ain ed c onv icti ons. H ow ev er , t hese li mita ti ons do notappl y to co n v icti ons from open pl eas of gu il ty

. See D ear s, 154 S. W .3d a t 613

. A defendant in a nonc api ta l cas e may w aiv e any

r ig hts se cured hi m by

l aw . See T ex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.1 4(a) (Verno n Sup p. 2004 ). H owev er, in the abse nce of a plea agreem entregarding sent encin g, a pre-sente nce waiv er of the right to app eal is unenforc eabl e. See Sm it h v . St ate, 91 S. W .3d 4 07, 4 08- 09 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2002, no p et.) ( citi

ng Ex par te T hom as, 545 S.W .2d 469 , 470 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 7)). Si nce the a ppel lat e record has been filed , w e are obli g ated to rev iew the re cord to d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r t h e t ri a l c o u rt ' s ce rt if ic a t io n o f a p p e ll a n t ’s ri g h to f

a p p e a l i s d e fe ct ive and, if so , t o obt a in anothe r cer ti ficat ion from t he tr ial co urt. See Dea rs, 154 S. W .3d a t 614- 15; Tex . R . Ap p. P . 34. 5( c) ; 37.1. A defecti v e c erti ficat ion i ncl udes a c erti ficat ion that is cor re ct in form, but, w hen compared w it h the re cord before the cour t, prov es to be ina cc urate. Dears , 154 S.W .3d a t 614

. Bec ause of the ambi g uity of the re co rd a n d c erti ficat ion , we c annot deter mine w hether the tr ial co urt' s c erti ficat ion of appel lan t’ s r ig ht t o appea l is ac curate, and t hus cann ot de term ine ou r jurisdiction o v er t he app eal. A ccordingly , w e aba te an d rem and this cas e to the tr ial courtfor re- cer ti ficat ion of

appel lan t' s r ig ht of appea l. SeeTex . R . Ap p. P

. 34.5( c) , 44. 3, 44 .4; Dea rs, 154 S. W .3d a t 614

.6

On remand, t he tr ial co urt s hal l imme d iat ely i ss ue not ic e of a hear ing and acc ordin g ly

co nducta he ar ing address ing the follo w ing i ss ues: 1. W hether

the cour t di d or did not follo w the ple a ag re ement in sent enci ng appel lan t. 2. W h e th e r the cour

t det er mined the p lea ag re ement as to dis posi ti on “void ed and w it hdraw n” before sent enci ng appel lan t. 3. W het her ap pellan t has th e trial court’s perm ission to ap pea l. 4 . W h e th e r ap p e lla n t wai ved hi s righ t t o ap p e a l su b se que n t t o se n te n cin g. 5. Any oth er facts upon w hich the court relied in certifying the case no nappeal abl e. 6. The facts upon w hic h the c our t reli es in re -c erti fyi ng the cas e, as di re cte d b e lo w. The tr ial co urt s hal l caus e thi s h ear ing to be transc ri bed. Itsh all make findi ng s o f fact an d c o ncl usi ons of law , and i ss ue any orders n eces sar

y for resol uti on of the li ste d is sues . W e furt her

di re ct that, after

co nduct ing the hear ing , the tr ial co urt re- cer ti fy w hether a p p e ll a n th a s t h e ri gh to f a p p e a l. T h e t ri a l c o u rt ' s f in d in gs o f fa cta n d co n c lu s io n s o f la w, the re-certifica tion, and any orders it enters sh all be includ ed in a su pple me nta l clerk's re cord. The transc ri pt of the hear ing sh all be i ncl uded i n a s uppl emental repor ter's record. The tr ial co urt i s d irect ed to ca use the s uppl emental cl er k' s a nd repor ter's records to be filed w it h the C ler k o f this C our t on or before Fr ida y , N ov ember 9, 2007. Shoul d the t ri al cour t req uire more ti me to c o m p ly with the direct ion s o f this C our t, itsh all req uestan extens ion pr ior

to Nov ember

9, 2007.7

It is so ordered.

Pe r C ur i am

Do not p ubl is h.