Court Opinion

ID: 9612789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:11:18.679265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:23.046791
License: Public Domain

RICHARD H. EDELMAN, Justice,
concurring on denial of en banc rehearing.
Burying a total waiver of appeal in the fine print of a guilty plea document and then having the defendant affirmatively acknowledge an admonishment suggesting, to the contrary, that he indeed has a limited right of appeal, is misleading. To then penalize the defendant, who proposed neither provision, and reward the State, for such a sloppy practice is senseless and unjust.
Wherever possible, courts construe statutes,1 judgments,2 jury findings,3 and contracts4 to harmonize inconsistent provisions and give effect to all. The guilty plea document and admonishment in this case should be treated no differently. In that context, the admonishment did not affect the voluntariness of the waiver of appeal, but merely its scope. Reading the two provisions together, they simply operate much the same as Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2), such that the right to appeal is waived except as to matters either raised by written pre-trial motion or for which the trial court gave its permission to appeal.
Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied.
Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices HUDSON, SEYMORE and GUZMAN would grant rehearing en banc.

. See Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545, 546 (Tex. Crim.App.2000).

. See Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex.2003).

. See Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108, 119, 83 S.Ct. 659, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963).

. See MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Texas Utils. Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647, 652 (Tex.1999).