Opinion ID: 4039659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Where a defendant decides to withdraw his guilty plea after the trial judge takes the case under advisement or pronounces judgment, the withdrawal of such plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court. McWherter v. State, 571 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. Crim. App.1978). The definition of an abuse of discretion encompasses myriads of cases and law reviews, but has been explained as: “The test for abuse of discretion is not whether, in the opinion of the reviewing court, the facts present an appropriate case for the trial court's action.” Rather, a trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to [any] guiding [rules and] principles” or is “‘so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.”’ (footnotes omitted). W. Wendell Hall, Hall’s Standard of Review in Texas, 42 St. Mary’s L.J. 3, 16 (2010). In Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, it is defined as: the phrase denoting a lenient standard of reviewing a lower court’s judgment, signifies “no single level of deference or scrutiny.” The “variability of the phrase is not hopeless. It just means that generalizations about the standard may not be helpful. Abuse in this context is not pejorative; the word here is wholly unrelated to the meaning of the term when used in common parlance.” -10- Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 10 (Oxford Univ. Press, 3d Ed. 2011)(1987). The trial court’s refusal to even consider the withdrawal based upon an unrecorded plea colloquy that occurred months earlier was unreasonable. The court’s explanation that “I will note that I would not have taken his plea, Mr. Peraza's plea, if I had not believed at the time he was entering it freely and voluntarily” is stout, but unreasonable. (2 R.R. at 9). The court failed to consider Mr. Peraza’s assertion of innocence. The court failed to consider any reason for the withdrawal, merely relying upon a belief that the court never takes an involuntary plea. That reasoning is “without reference to [any] guiding [rules and] principles.” The record is silent as to the plea colloquy. The passing of a case for a PSI report is considered “[taking] the case under advisement.” Jackson v. State, 590 S.W.2d 514, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). A judge is free to make any finding based on the evidence regardless of the plea; withdrawal of a guilty plea is not required even when evidence in a PSI raises an issue of a defendant's innocence. Fisher v. State, 104 S.W.3d 923, 924 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Typically, proper admonishments by a trial court establish prima facie proof that a guilty plea was entered knowingly and -11- voluntarily. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Houston v. State, 201 S.W.3d 212, 217 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). In the case sub judice, the plea was not taken by a court reporter. There is no evidence to support the plea colloquy was correct. What is present in the record is an attorney requesting that her client be able to withdraw his plea. The attorney made an appropriate argument that Mr. Peraza felt coerced into pleading guilty. The PSI (despite the State’s assertions of a confession) establish that Mr. Peraza repeatedly denied the offense. In this case, the burden has shifted to Mr. Peraza to show he pleaded guilty without understanding the consequences of his plea and, consequently, suffered harm. Houston, 201 S.W.3d at 217. The PSI hearing supports the proposition that Mr. Peraza wished to withdraw his plea. And the voluntariness of a defendant’s plea should never be so summarily dismissed with the statement by the court that the plea would not have been taken had it not been “freely and voluntarily” entered. (2 R.R. at 9). -12- PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the reasons states above, Mr. Peraza prays that this Court grant his petition. Respectfully submitted, Jani Maselli Wood _______________________________ JANI J. MASELLI WOOD Assistant Public Defender Harris County, Texas Jani.Maselli@pdo.hctx.net TBN. 00791195 1201 Franklin Street, 13th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 368-0016 Fax: (713) 368-9278 Attorney for Appellant Osmin Peraza -13- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Tex. R. App. Proc. 9.5, this certifies that on January 26, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was emailed to Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney, and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office through texfile.com at the following address: Jessica Akins Assistant District Attorney 1201 Franklin Street, 6th Floor Houston, TX 77002 akins_jessica@dao.hctx.net Lisa McMinn Lisa.McMinn@SPA.texas.gov Jani Maselli Wood _________________________________ JANI J. MASELLI WOOD -14- CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to proposed Rule 9.4(i)(3), undersigned counsel certifies that this petition complies with the type-volume limitations of TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4(I)(2)(D). 1. Exclusive of the portions exempted by TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4 (I)(1), this petition contains 3393 words printed in a proportionally spaced typeface. 2. This petition is printed in a proportionally spaced, serif typeface using Garamond 14 point font in text and Garamond 14 point font in footnotes produced by Corel WordPerfect software. 3. Undersigned counsel understands that a material misrepresentation in completing this certificate, or circumvention of the type-volume limits in Tex. R. App. Proc. 9.4(j), may result in the Court's striking this brief and imposing sanctions against the person who signed it. Jani Maselli Wood ____________________________ JANI J. MASELLI WOOD -15-