Court Opinion

ID: 9352420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 10:10:05.125361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:38.685929
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-22-00092-CR

JOSE ANGEL MORALES, JR.,
                                                            Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                            Appellee

                           From the 21st District Court
                             Burleson County, Texas
                              Trial Court No. 16,254

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Jose Angel Morales, Jr. pled guilty without a recommendation by the State to

aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon (Count One) and assault

on a public servant (Count Two). The two charges were enhanced by a prior felony

conviction. The trial court sentenced Morales to life in prison on Count One, and 20 years

in prison on Count Two. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Morales’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
BACKGROUND

        While in the Burleson County jail for other reasons, Morales assaulted two

different jailers. A third incident occurred during the jury selection process for the trial

on the two jailer assaults where a deputy was punched by Morales and other officers

were injured while trying to subdue Morales. This third incident gave rise to a mistrial

as well as new pending charges against Morales.            The Burleson County/District

Attorney’s Office recused itself and sought the assistance of the Brazos County District

Attorney to act as special prosecutor for the new charges. The jailer assaults were

reindicted and Morales insisted on pleading guilty to both counts without a

recommendation by the State. The trial court accepted the pleas and set a punishment

hearing at a later date. Three months later, and before his punishment hearing, Morales

changed his mind and submitted a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court

denied the motion and proceeded to Morales’s punishment hearing.

WITHDRAWAL OF GUILTY PLEA

        In one issue on appeal, Morales asserts the trial court abused its discretion in

denying Morales’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant may withdraw his

guilty plea as a matter of right without assigning reason until a judgment has been

pronounced or the case has been taken under advisement. Jackson v. State, 590 S.W.2d

514, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). However, where the defendant decides to withdraw his

guilty plea after the judgment has been pronounced or the trial judge takes the case under

advisement, the withdrawal of such plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

Id.

Morales v. State                                                                      Page 2
        Morales argues the trial court abused its discretion because Morales’s plea of

guilty was involuntary. Specifically, Morales contends counsel conveyed erroneous

information which led to his decision to plead guilty; that being, the State would dismiss

the other pending charges against Morales if he pled guilty. Morales relies on the Court

of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Ex parte Griffin, wherein the Court held “a plea of guilty

is invalid if it is induced by defense counsel's direct misrepresentation that the State has

made a concession which in fact was not part of the plea agreement,” to support his

argument. Ex parte Griffin, 679 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

        Evidence

        According to the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to withdraw and

the transcription of the plea hearing, the alleged agreement was conditioned on Morales’s

accepting the term of punishment recommended by the State.1 Morales refused. Instead,

Morales persistently and emphatically wished to plead guilty and let the trial court

decide his punishment; much to the dismay of his counsel who stated numerous times

on the record that he advised Morales not to plead guilty but to let the jury decide his

guilt or innocence and punishment. 2

1
 There may have been two offers by the State; one in December, a day before the Burleson County District
Attorney’s Office recused itself regarding Morales’s new offenses and one in January minutes before
Morales’s plea. Both offers were conditioned on Morales accepting the State’s recommendation of
punishment, which was 25 years and 50 years, respectively. Morales refused to accept either
recommendation as to a term of punishment.

2
  Counsel even struck out language in the plea papers which stated counsel had advised Morales that
pleading guilty “was the right thing to do.”

Morales v. State                                                                                 Page 3
        Application

        The record reflects there was never an agreement by the State to dismiss the other

cases against Morales based on an open plea of guilty to the court, and counsel never

conveyed such an agreement to Morales. Thus, there was no direct misrepresentation

that the State made a concession not part of the plea agreement which would have

induced Morales to plead guilty.

CONCLUSION

        Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales’s

motion to withdraw his open plea of guilty.

        Morales’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

                                          TOM GRAY
                                          Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 4, 2023
Do not publish
[CRPM]

Morales v. State                                                                      Page 4