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

Washington pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (cocaine under 1 gram) without an agreed recommendation; trial court assessed 60 days confinement.
He signed a written waiver/admonishment form acknowledging felony PCS and that his plea was knowing and voluntary; he waived appeal in his plea paperwork but the court later amended the certification to show he had a right to appeal.
After judgment, Washington filed multiple pro se motions (including a motion for new trial seeking withdrawal of his plea, alleging misunderstanding and involuntary plea) and correspondence requesting hearings and counsel involvement.
The district clerk informed him the court took no action on his motions and that a sentence cannot be appealed after it is satisfied; the trial court later appointed appellate counsel and entered a nunc pro tunc judgment reflecting a right to appeal.
The trial court overruled his post-judgment motions by operation of law; Washington appealed arguing (1) deprivation of counsel during the 30-day motion-for-new-trial period and (2) erroneous denial of a hearing on his motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Washington was denied counsel during the 30-day motion-for-new-trial period	Washington: trial court’s statements and later appointment of appellate counsel plus pro se filings show he lacked counsel during the critical period	State: presumption that appointed trial counsel continued representation unless rebutted; pro se filings alone do not rebut; appellate appointment after the period is not dispositive	Court: Presumption not rebutted; even if error occurred, any deprivation was harmless because Washington did not show specific harm
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a hearing on the motion for new trial	Washington: his motion alleged matters outside the record (collateral consequences, mistaken belief plea was misdemeanor, insufficient residue evidence) entitling him to a hearing	State: record shows proper admonishments and waivers; allegations are conclusory or contradicted by written admonishments and stipulations	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial record and sworn admonishments negate need for hearing; claims were conclusory or determinable from record

Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (30-day motion-for-new-trial period is a critical stage requiring counsel)
Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (presumption that trial counsel continues representation; what rebuts presumption)
Green v. State, 264 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (filing pro se motions does not alone rebut presumption of continued representation)
Lundgren v. State, 434 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appeal waiver does not waive right to file a motion for new trial)
Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standards for entitlement to a new-trial hearing: matters outside the record and reasonable grounds must be asserted)