Court Opinion

ID: 3077012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:23:24.846725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:05:41.642749
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-11-00180-CR
                           ____________________

                    CULLEN ASHTON TODD, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________           ______________

                   On Appeal from the 221st District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 10-05-04679-CR
________________________________________________________           _____________

               MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

      In one of his issues on motion for rehearing, Cullen Ashton Todd contends

his guilty plea was involuntary because the trial court stated the improper

punishment range in the oral admonishment during the plea hearing. He did not

present this argument to this Court in his brief on appeal. Moreover, he did not

present this claim to the trial court in his application for writ of habeas corpus.

Todd’s stated ground for habeas relief was ineffective assistance of counsel due to

trial counsel’s failure to adequately investigate the value of the property before

                                        1
Todd accepted the plea bargain for a guilty plea to a state jail felony. Accordingly,

Todd failed to preserve the oral admonishment issue through his habeas

application. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.

      Todd failed to challenge the validity of his guilty plea in a direct appeal

when the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt. See Dillehey v. State, 815
S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Todd did eventually dispute the

accuracy of the oral admonishment in a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but he

filed the motion during revocation proceedings that occurred after the trial court

considered and ruled on Todd’s habeas petition. He cannot challenge the validity

of his plea in the appeal of the adjudication following revocation of community

supervision. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

We overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing.

      MOTION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.

                                             ________________________________
                                                    STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                        Chief Justice

Opinion Delivered May 15, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                         2