Court Opinion

ID: 9667149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:36:45.818147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:35.328830
License: Public Domain

OPINION
SEARS, Justice.
Appellant entered a plea of nolo conten-dere before the court to the offense of theft. Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 31.03. He was convicted and the court assessed punishment, enhanced under Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d), at imprisonment for thirty-five years. We reverse and remand.
Appellant raises two points of error. In his first point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in not quashing the indictment, or in the alternative, in not quashing the enhancement allegations of the indictment. In his second point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in not sentencing him to a term of ten years or less.
The judgment in this cause recites that appellant entered his plea of nolo con-tendere “without an agreed recommendation ...” as to punishment. Recitals contained in a judgment create a presumption of regularity and truthfulness, absent an affirmative showing to the contrary. Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). The record of the hearing on appellants plea of nolo conten-dere clearly reflects that appellant entered his plea without an agreed punishment recommendation. Where a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is voluntarily and understandingly entered without a plea bargain agreement, all nonjurisdictional defects, including claimed deprivations of federal due process, are waived. King v. State, 687 S.W.2d 762, 766 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). However, where it is obvious from the record that the trial court, defense counsel *122and the appellant are laboring under the false impression an appeal is in order, the plea was not entered voluntarily and knowingly. Shallhorn v. State, 732 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).
In the instant cause, the hearing on the pre-trial motions, the plea, and the sentencing hearing were held the same day. After the trial court denied the pre-trial motions, the appellant pled nolo contendere and when asked if he wanted to waive the ten days in which to file a motion for new trial and accept sentencing now, appellant responded:
I am going to accept sentence today, but I am going to appeal the case.
After sentence was pronounced at thirty-five years, the following colloquy occurred:
THE COURT: ... You may have credit for your jail time. Notice of appeal, as you have already indicated, will be noted. Thank you. Good luck.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Thank you. I would like to give formal notice of appeal in open court.
THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect.
It is clear from the record that, at the time he entered his plea of nolo contendere, appellant was operating under the mistaken belief that he had a right to appeal. The trial court was aware of appellant’s intent to appeal and acknowledged his notice of appeal. Where a defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, based on the mistaken belief he is entitled to appeal the ruling on a pre-trial motion, the plea is not entered voluntarily or knowingly. Broddus v. State, 693 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). [Note: Broddus v. State, in an unpublished opinion from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, reversed a conviction based on a plea of nolo conten-dere where the defendant mistakenly believed he had a right to appeal the denial of pre-trial motions.]
The entry of a plea of guilty involves the waiver of constitutional rights, and such a waiver must not only be voluntary, but must be done knowingly and intelligently “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Huffman v. State, 676 S.W.2d 677, 682 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, pet. ref'd) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)).
It is obvious from the facts of the instant case that appellant was not aware of the “likely consequences” of his plea, including most prominently his inability to appeal the ruling on his pre-trial motion. As a result, his plea was rendered involuntary. Where a plea is “conditional” and, therefore, involuntary, reversal is mandated. Christal v. State, 692 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (opinion on State’s motion for rehearing.) Finding the plea was not made voluntarily or knowingly, we must reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.