## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O S. A P - 76, 059 & A P - 76, 060
EX PA R TE TE R R EN C E L A D O N BR O A D W A Y , A ppl i c ant ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR W RI TS OF HABE AS CORP US

FROM DALLAS CO UNTY
M E YE RS , J ., de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., K EASLE R , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . W OMACK , J. , f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h J OHNS ON , J ., jo in e d . P RI CE , J ., c o n c u r r e d in th e r e s u lt . O P I N I O N A ppl i cant , T err ence L adon B r oadw ay , pl ed gui l t yt o t he cha r ges of del i veryof a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance and r et al i at i on. H e chos e t o ent eran open pl ea a ft erdecl i ni ng t he S tat e’s p lea-b arg ain o ff er. T h e jud g e a sses sed p u n ishm en t at2 5 y ea rs’ i m p ri so n m en t. In hi s appl i cat i ons forw r i t s of habe as corpus , A ppl i cantal l eged i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n se l o n tw o g ro u n d s: (1 ) th a t h is c o u n se l f a iled to in f

o rm h im o f

h is rig h t to a p p e a l h is s ent ence and ( 2) t hathi s couns el al l ow ed hi m t o s i gn a w ai verof appe al befor e he w asBroadwa y –Pag e 2

The re cord c onsistently

ref ers to “probation.” Howe ver, Article 42.12 of theCode of 1 Criminal Procedureuses the ter m “community

supervision.” C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 42.12. Previous case s have use d the terms interc hang eably . See Ex pa rteIn sa ll , 224 S.W .3d 213, 214 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). s ent ence d. I n r es pons e, one of hi s at t or ney s fi l ed an a ffi davi ts t at i ng t hatA ppl i cant w a i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l t o i n d u c e t h e S t a t e t o c o n s e n tt o t h e w a i v e ro f a j u r yt r i a l . We f iled a n d se t th is c a se f

o r su b m iss io n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a d e f e n d a n t ca n v o lu n tar ily
w ai ve hi s ent i r e appe al as a partof a pl ea, even w hen s ent enci ng i s notagr eed upon,
w her e cons i der at i on i s gi ven byt he St at e fort hatw ai ver . W e ans w ert hatques t i on i n t he a f f ir m a tiv e a n d d e n yre lie f o n A p p lic a n t’ s w ri ts . I. F a cts A ppl i cantw as char ged w i t h del i veryof a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance , a s econd- degr ee f e lo n y , a n d re ta lia tio n , a th ir d -d e g re e f e lo n y . T EX . H EAL TH & S AF ETY C OD E A NN . § 4 8 1 .1 1 2 ; T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 36. 06. B ot h i ndi ct m ent s w er e enha nced byt w o pr i or convi ct i ons , w hi ch r ai s ed t he mi ni m um puni s hm entt o 25 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm enti n eac h c a s e . T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 1 2 .4 2 . Be f o r e Ap p l i c a n te n t e r e d h i s p l e a , t h e j u d g e r e v i e we d t h e o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o h i m: “J ur yt r i al ory ou coul d t ake a pl ea ba r gai n, w hi ch i s a mi ni m um of 25 y ear s i n pr i s on or do an open pl ea w hi ch [w oul d] al l ow m e t o cons i dergi vi ng s om e ki nd of drug t r eatm ent on pr obat i on. ” A ppl i cantdecl i ned the pl ea- bar gai n offe rand chos e t o ent eran open pl ea 1
w ith th e h o p e th a t th e ju d g e w o u ld p lac e h im o n d e f e rre d -a d ju d ica tio n c o m m u n ity s uper vi s i on w i t h drug t r eatm ent . I n or dert o s ecur e the j udge’ s abi l i t yt o cons i derBroadwa y –Pag e 3

Though Applicant admits in his applications that he signed a w aiver of appe al, his plea 2 agree ment form, signed on Oc tober 16, 2006, be ars his mark ne x t to the paragraph that rea ds, “I understand that Ihave a

right to appeal to the Court of A ppeals.” At first g lance , Applicant’s de cision to enter a n open plea

and waive his right to appeal 3 appea rs odd bec ause theprimary advantag e to entering a

n open plea

is a relatively

unlimit ed right to appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2 (a). In c ontr a st, in a ple a -b arg a in c a se , th e Rul e s o f A pp e llate Procedure impose re strictions on a defendant’s right to appeal. Id. Clearly, Applicant found a n op e n p le a more a pp e a lin gtha

n th e State ’s ple a -b arg a in o ff e r, e ve n w ith out it s p ri mary be ne fi t. d e f e rre d -a d ju d ica tio n c o m m u n itysu p e rv isio n w ith d ru g tre a tm e n t, A p p lica n t w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a ju ry tria l. C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 1 .1 3 . A p p lica n t p led g u iltyto b o th c h a r g e s a n d t ru e t o t h e e n h a n c e me n tp a r a g r a p h s r e l a t i n g t o h i s p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s . At s ent enci ng, aft err emi ndi ng A ppl i cantt hatno pl ea ba r gai n exi s t ed, t he j udge as s es s ed p u n ish m e n t at 2 5 y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t, th e m in im u m p u n ish m e n t. I n hi s appl i cat i ons forw r i t s of habe as corpus , A ppl i cantal l eged i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l o n th e g ro u n d s th a t h is a tto rn e y s f a iled to in f

o rm h im o f

h is rig h t to appea l hi s s ent ence and t hatt heyal l ow ed hi m t o s i gn a w ai verof appe al befor e bei ng se n ten c e d . In re sp o n se , o n e a tto rn e yf iled a n a f

f id a v it statin g th a t A p p lica n t “w a iv e d h is r i ghtof appe al i n or dert o i nduce the [S] t at e t o w ai ve i t s r i ghtt o for ce a j ur yt r i al i n or der t hathe coul d as k t he courtt o gi ve hi m defe r r ed adj udi cat i on pr obat i on w i t h drug t r eatm ent . ” T he tr i al cour tent er ed fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw , concl udi ng

2 t hat“couns el w as noti neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l beca us e A ppl i cant h a d k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l p rio r to e n ter in g h is g u ilty pl ea. ” T he t r i al cour tr ecomm ended thatr el i ef be deni ed. W e fi l ed and s ett hi s cas e for

3Broadwa y –Pag e 4

However, in a plea -barg ain ca se, a de fenda nt may appeal only

those matters that we re 4 raised by a written motion fil ed and r uled on bef

ore trial, or afte r g etting thetrial court’ s permission to appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a) . Note that the Code of

Criminal Procedurerestric ts a defendant’s ability to waive the 5 right of trial by

jury in a ca pital felony

case . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 1.14. The c ourt place d the def

endant on de fer

red- adjudication probation, but the defenda nt 6 violated the ter

ms of his community

supervision. Delaney , 207 S.W .3d at 796. Ultimately , the court a ssessed punishment at conf inement for lifeand a f

ine of $10,000. Id. subm i ssi on t o d et erm i ne w hethera def end ant can vo l un t ari l yw ai ve h i s ent i re appeal as a par tof a pl ea, even w hen s ent enci ng i s notagr eed upon, w her e cons i der at i on i s gi ven by th e S ta te f

o r t h a t w a iv e r. E

x par t e Broadw ay , N os . A P- 76, 059 & A P- 76, 060, 2008 T ex. C ri m . A p p . L E X IS 9 3 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . D e c . 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ). II . A n a ly sis A d e f e n d a n t in a n yc rim in a l ac tio n h a s th e rig h t o f a p p e a l. C OD E C R IM . P R OC .

4 A NN . ar t . 44. 02. H ow ever , a “de fenda nti n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on foranyoffe ns e may w a iv e a n yri g h ts s e c u re d h im b yla w .” C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 1. 14. A w ai verof 5 t he r i ghtt o appea l m ade vol unt ar i l y , know i ngl y , and i nt el l i gent l yw i l l pr eventa def endant f ro m a p p e a lin g w ith o u t th e c o n s e n t o f th e tr ia l c o u rt . Mo n re a l v. S ta te , 99 S. W . 3d 615, 6 1 7 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) . S o , t h e q u e s t i o n b e c o m e s w h e t h e rA p p l i c a n tv o l u n t a r i l y, k n o w in g ly, an d in te llig e n tly w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. I d. I n E x par t e D elaney , 207 S. W . 3d 794, 795- 96 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2006) , t he defe ndantchos e a s i m i l arpr ocedur al s t r at egy ; he pl ed gui l t yw i t houtan agr eed re c o m m e n d e d se n ten c e , w a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l, an d w a iv e d h is rig h t to a ju rytrial. 6Broadwa y –Pag e 5

Delaney emphasizes the abse nce of a barg ain, but only

considers agree d rec ommended 7 sentenc es to the exclusion of other barg ainingpossibili ties: “When a pre sentenc ing w aiver of a pp e a l w a s n ot b arg a ine d f or in e xch ang e fo r a

n agre e d u

po n s e ntenc e , c on c e rn s a s to thevalidity of the waiver a

re raised.” Delaney , 207 S.W .3d at 798. Though therewas no plea barg ain and no agree d rec ommended sente nce, Delaney possibly involved a different ba

rg ain, such a s the one a gre e d to by

Ap pli c ant: thede fend ant w a ivi nghis ri ght t o a pp e a l in e xch ang e fo r t

heState c on se nti ngto t

hewaiver o f a

jur y tria l. Applicant’s plea

agree ment form docume nts his choice of a n open plea

over a plea 8 barg ain. Specific ally , his plea wa s open as to community supervision with drugtreatment. There T he i s s ue cons i der ed byt hi s C our tw as w hethert he w ai verof t he r i ghtt o appea l w as m ade vol unt ar i l y , know i ngl y , and i nt el l i gent l ygi ven the fol l ow i ng ci r cumst ance s : ( 1) t he defe ndants i gned the w ai verbefor e fi nal adj udi cat i on and s ent enci ng; ( 2) t he w ai verw as notbar gai ned for ; and, ( 3) puni s hm entw as uncert ai n w hen the w ai verw as s i gned, butt he ra n g e o f p u n is h m e n t f

o r t h e o f f e n s e w a s k n o w n . Id
. at796. W e hel d t hata pr e- t r i al or pr e- s ent enci ng w ai verof t he r i ghtt o appea l i s notvol unt ary , know i ng, and i nt el l i gent w h e n th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e w a iv e r a re n o t k n o w n w ith c e rt a in ty. Id
. a t7 9 9 . F o rt wo r e a s o n s , we d i s t i n g u i s h t h e p r e s e n tc a s e f r o m D elaney and conc l ude thatA ppl i cant w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l v o lu n ta ri ly, k n o w in g ly, an d in te llig e n tly. A . A ppl i c ant ’ s w ai ve r w as t he r e s ul t of a ba r ga i n. A keycomponent t o ouranal y s i s i n D elaney w as t hatt he w ai verof appe al w as not t he r es ul tof a ba r gai n. Id
. at79 8. H ow ever, t here w as a bargai n in A pp l i cant’ s case 7 beca us e the St at e gave cons i der at i on forA ppl i cant ’ s w ai verof appe al . I tw as nota pl ea bar gai n; A ppl i cantr ej ect ed the pl ea ba r gai n offe r ed byt he St at e and c hos e t o ent eran o p e n p lea . B u t a b a rg a in o f a d if f e re n t so rt o rig in a ted f

ro m A p p lica n t’s d e c isio n to 8Broadwa y –Pag e 6

is no agree d sentenc e indicate d. w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yi n or dert o ens ur e thatt he j udge w oul d be abl e t o cons i der defe r r ed- adj udi cat i on comm uni t ys uper vi s i on w i th drug t r eatm ent . U ndert he C ode of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, a def endantm aynotuni l at er al l yw ai ve the r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al –t he c o u rt a n d th e S ta te m u s t c o n s e n t to th e w a iv e r. C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 1. 13. T he tr ial co u rtfo u n d that the S tat e d id n o t w an t t o co n sen t t o A p p li ca n t’ s w aive r of a jury tr ia l. T h e re f

o re , A p p lic a n t in d u c e d th e S ta te to c o n s e n t b yw a iv in g h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. T hi s cons t i tut ed a ba r gai n and di s t ance s A ppl i cant ’ s cas e fr om ourhol di ng i n D elaney . B . A ppl i cant knew t he cons equences of hi s w ai ver. I n D elaney , w e conc l uded t hatt he def endant ’ s w ai verof appe al w as notm ade vol unt ar i l y , know i ngl y , and i nt el l i gent l ybeca us e the cons equenc es of t he w ai verw er e not “know n w i t h cert ai nt y . ” D elaney , 2 0 7 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 9 . T h o u g h it w a s n o t a p lea -b a rg a in cas e, ouropi ni on endor s ed a pl ea a gr eementt hati dent i fi ed the ac tual puni s hm entor m axi m um puni s hm ent ; but , w e s t at ed, “s i m pl yknow i ng t he r ange of puni s hm entfort he o f f e n s e i s n o te n o u g h t o m a k e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a w a i v e rk n o w n w i t h c e r t a i n t y, beca us e i ts t i l l does notal l ayt he conc ern t hatunant i ci pat ed err or s m ayoccuratt he puni s hm entphas e of tr i al . ” Id
. T w o ques t i ons emer ge r egar di ng thes e gui del i nes for d e te rm in in g c e rt a in ty. F i rs t , w hat i s t he si gn i fi cant di fference b et w een a p l ea agreem ent that es t abli shes a m axi m um puni s hm entand a pl ea a gr eementt hates t abl i s hes a r ange of puni s hm ent ? W hyBroadwa y –Pag e 7

Th is i s n ot t

hefi rs t ti mewehaveve e re d f ro m Delaney ’s sta

nd ard fo r c e rt a int

y wi th 9 reg ard to the c onsequenc es of a waiver . In In sa ll , we remar ked, “Under therea soning of Delaney , a

pp lic ant’ s w a iver o f h is right t o s e e k h a be a s r e lie f w a s invo luntary or no t ‘ kn ow ing ly and intelligently

made’ beca

use the plea

agree ment contained only the ra ng e of punishment and not a ce rtain punishment to be imposed if guilt was adjudicate d.” In sa ll , 224 S.W .3d 213 at 215. However, in that ca se, wedeter mined that the applica

nt was nevertheless a

ware of the conseque nces of

his waiver. Id. i s t he form eracc ept abl e and the l at t erunacc ept abl e w hen s t at i ng t he maxi m um puni s hm entm er el ydel i neat es one boundaryof t he pos s i bl e r ange? I tdoes notm ake s ens e thataddi ng a r efe r ence t o t he mi ni m um s ent ence i n a pl ea a gr eementw oul d m ake an otherw i s e val i d w ai veri nval i d j us tbeca us e the maxi m um has a corr es pondi ng m in im u m . S e c o n d , itis p ro b lem a tic to sa yth a t D elaney ’ s r ecomm ended pl ea a gr eement , one w hi ch s t at es t he ac tual orm axi m um puni s hm ent , w i l l al w ay s pr oduce a val i d w ai ver . T he dangeri n t hatguar ant ee i s t hata j udge w ho pr ocee ds t o fi nal adj udi cat i on of gui l taft er th e re v o c a tio n o f

c o m m u n itysu p e rv isio n n e e d n o t as se ss p u n ish m e n t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a n yp le a a g re e m e n t. V

o n S c h o u n m a c h e r v . S ta te , 5 S. W . 3d 221, 223 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e o n ly re s tr ic tio n s o n th e ju d g e a t th a t p o in t a re th e re le v a n t s ta tu to ry lim its . Id
. S o , u n les s th e p lea a g re e m e n t sim p lyre p o rts th e sta tu to rylim its f o r p u n ish m e n t, i t w ill notacc ur at el yr efl ectt he puni s hm entt hatcoul d be as s es s ed i f gui l ti s adj udi cat ed. T he onl yt hi ng “ce r t ai n” i s t hatt he j udge ca n as s es s anypuni s hm ents t atut or i l yper m i t t ed. 9 T h e o th e r p o in t to b e m a d e w ith re g a rd to th e k n o w n c o n se q u e n c e s o f w a iv e r is t hatcer t ai nt yas t o puni s hm entcannotbe expe ct ed w hen a de fenda ntopt s t o decl i ne aBroadwa y –Pag e 8

We note that a plea

barg ain will not continue to protect a defendant who re ceive s 10 deferre d-adjudication community supervision if the cour

t proce eds to adjudication at a later date. I f a de fenda

nt violates the terms of the de fer red- adjudication community supervision, the cour

t wi l ln o l o n ger

b e l i m i t edb y

th e p ro ce d

ure s o f Art i cl e 2 6 . 1 3 , wh i chre qu i re th atth e j u d ge sentenc e in ac corda

nce w ith the plea agree ment or allow the de fenda nt to withdraw the plea . Von Schounmac her , 5 S.W .3d at 223 (holdingthat “re g ardle ss of whethe r the de fer red a djudication was pa rt of a ple a barg ain, re commended by the prosecution, impos ed by the trial cour

t without ob je c tio n b y

thea pp e lla nt, or gra nte d und e r o ther c irc ums tanc e s, on c e thetria l c ourt proc e e ds to adjudication, it is restricted in the sentenceit impos es only by the re levant statutory

limit s”). p lea b arg ain. In this ca se, A p p li ca n t cho se to en ter an o p en p lea. T h e f u n d am en tal n ature of an ope n pl ea i s uncert ai nt y . I f A ppl i canthad agr eed t o a pl ea ba r gai n, he w oul d have obt ai ned the bene fi t s pr ovi ded byA r t i cl e 26. 13, namel yan announc ement fr om t he j udge befor e anyfi ndi ng on t he pl ea a s t o w hethert he courtw oul d fol l ow orr ej ectt he a g re e m e n t an d th e o p p o rtu n ityto w ith d ra w th e p lea if th e c o u rt re

jec ted th e a g re e m e n t. 10 C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 2 6 .1 3 . I I I . C oncl usi on I n c o n c l u s i o n , w e a g r e e w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r tt h a tA p p l i c a n tv o l u n t a r i l y, k n o w i n g l y, a n d in tellig e n tlyw a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l. W e d e n yA p p lica n t re lief a n d h o ld th a t a defe ndantm ayknow i ngl yand i nt el l i gent l yw ai ve hi s ent i r e appe al as a partof a pl ea, even w hen s ent enci ng i s notagr eed upon, w her e cons i der at i on i s gi ven byt he St at e for that w aive r. M e y e r s , J . D el i ver ed: D ece m ber16, 2009 P ub l i sh