Andrey Cardiel Martinez v. State, 13-16-00460-CR

Background

Between July 2015 and February 2016 multiple businesses in McAllen were burglarized; police identified Andrey Cardiel Martinez and he was indicted in six separate causes on a total of 13 counts of burglary of a building (state jail felonies).
Martinez negotiated plea discussions over several hearings before multiple judges; prosecutors at times offered a 13‑month recommendation but later withdrew that recommendation.
On July 7, 2016 Martinez entered open guilty pleas to nine burglary counts; the court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to two years’ state‑jail for each count, ordering some sentences to run consecutively so that total exposure was eight years in state jail.
The written judgments ordered restitution of $22,029.61 and specified which counts run concurrent and which consecutive.
On appeal Martinez argued (1) the court erred in ordering consecutive sentences (violating Penal Code §3.03), (2) the State breached a plea agreement to recommend 13 months, (3) his pleas were involuntary, and (4) counsel was ineffective.
The State conceded the offenses formed a single criminal episode prosecuted in a single action; the court concluded Martinez’s guilty pleas were involuntary because the parties (including judges and counsel) incorrectly believed consecutive sentences were permissible, so the pleas were set aside and judgments reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Legality of cumulative (consecutive) sentences under Tex. Penal Code §3.03	Sentences arose from the same criminal episode and single action, so they must run concurrently; stacking was improper	Initially contested but ultimately conceded the offenses were a single criminal episode; asked for modification of judgments to delete cumulation	Court held §3.03 barred consecutive sentences here and that stacking was not lawful; but more importantly pleas were involuntary due to misapprehension about cumulation
Breach of plea agreement (13‑month recommendation)	State promised to recommend 13 months and then withdrew/contradicted that promise	The State argued no judge ever accepted a 13‑month plea agreement; if no court accepted it, the State was free to withdraw	Court found no binding plea agreement was accepted by a judge, so no enforceable breach; claim overruled
Voluntariness of guilty pleas given misinformation about sentencing exposure	Pleas were involuntary because Martinez (and counsel) reasonably believed consecutive sentences were available and would affect his decision to plead	State conceded the §3.03 issue but argued only modification necessary	Court held pleas were involuntary because the parties — including judges and counsel — misrepresented sentencing consequences; pleas vacated and judgments reversed and remanded
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to advise Martinez that consecutive sentences were not permissible and misled him about likely sentence	Because pleas are set aside on other grounds, ineffective assistance issues need not be reached	Court did not decide ineffective assistance because vacating the pleas rendered those claims unnecessary to resolve

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moore, 240 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (plea agreements are contractual but are not binding until approved by the trial court)
Bitterman v. State, 180 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (once trial judge accepts plea agreement the State may not withdraw its obligations)
LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (definition of "single criminal action" for §3.03 purposes: multiple offenses presented in a single trial or plea proceeding)
Moussazadeh (Ex parte Moussazadeh), 361 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (plea involuntary when counsel misinformation about punishment/parole rendered defendant’s choice uninformed)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (constitutional requirement that guilty pleas be voluntary and intelligent)
Jackson v. State, 157 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2005) (remedy: modify judgment to delete improper cumulation order)
Guidry v. State, 909 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 1995) (same: modify judgment when cumulation unlawful)