Abner L. Washington, 01-14-00885-CR

Defendant Abner Washington pled guilty to possession of <1 gram of cocaine and was sentenced to 60 days in jail after an open (WOAR) plea; judgment states appeal waived but no valid waiver is in the record.
No reporter’s record was made of the plea hearing; the judgment’s certification incorrectly indicates Washington waived the right to appeal.
Trial counsel’s fee voucher was submitted shortly after sentencing and Washington’s pro se filings indicate counsel was no longer representing him during the 30‑day motion‑for‑new‑trial period.
Within days of conviction Washington (while jailed) filed multiple pro se motions and letters seeking reappointment of counsel, a hearing, and to withdraw his plea, and he alleged involuntariness and other factual grounds for relief.
The court clerk repeatedly replied that “the court took no action” and incorrectly informed Washington he could not appeal because his sentence had been satisfied; appellate counsel was not appointed until roughly three months after conviction.
Appellant’s brief argues these facts rebut the presumption that trial counsel continued representation, that Washington was denied counsel during the critical 30‑day period, and that his verified pro se filings entitled him to a hearing on a motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Washington)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Whether Washington was denied right to counsel during the 30‑day period to file a motion for new trial	Washington contends he was effectively unrepresented after conviction (trial counsel relieved/fee voucher filed; clerk and judgment indicated no appeal; repeated pro se requests for counsel); this rebuts the presumption of continued representation and violated Sixth Amendment rights	State would argue the presumption that trial counsel continued covers post‑trial matters unless rebutted by clear record showing termination	No appellate decision in the record; appellant asks this Court to remand/abate for appointment of counsel and litigation of a motion for new trial because the record supports deprivation of counsel
2. Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a hearing on Washington’s motion for new trial	Washington argues his verified pro se motion and letters raised factual matters outside the record (involuntariness, collateral consequences, factual insufficiency of residue) and satisfied presentment and verification requirements, entitling him to a hearing	State would argue the motion/verification/presentment were insufficient or that the matters were determinable from the record so no hearing required	No appellate decision in the record; appellant requests remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, asserting the motion and jurat are sufficient to require one

Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (right to counsel during the 30‑day motion‑for‑new‑trial period; harmless‑error standard)
Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (presumption that trial counsel continues post‑trial can be rebutted by record)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (indigent defendants have right to counsel)
Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (consideration needed for pre‑sentencing waiver of appeal)
In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (court officers must not impede inmate access to courts)
Washington v. State, 363 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (limits on presentencing appeal waivers)
Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standards for when a new‑trial hearing is required)
Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (definition and proof of presentment of a motion for new trial)