Cody Crymes v. State, 01-15-00206-CR

Appellant Cody Crymes was indicted for Sexual Assault of a Child in Chambers County, Texas.
On April 7, 2014, Crymes pled guilty, with a written stipulation admitted; the court found him competent and the plea voluntary; guilt evidence was closed and sentencing was reset for punishment only.
In June–October 2014, Crymes substituted counsel; on September 5, 2014 Crymes moved to withdraw his plea, triggering a series of hearings and briefing.
December 18, 2014, the trial court held Crymes did not have an absolute right to withdraw the plea, offered options (including a polygraph), and reset for February 27, 2015 sentencing.
On February 27, 2015, Crymes was sentenced under the plea bargain with deferred adjudication; Crymes filed a notice of appeal on March 3, 2015; the trial court had certified that no appeal rights existed due to the plea-bargain nature.
The State contends there was substantial compliance with Article 26.13 and that Crymes waived appeal rights via the certification and the Stipulations, Waivers & Admissions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Crymes have an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea?	Crymes asserts due process under Article 26.13(a)(2) entitles withdrawal before advisement.	The case was taken under advisement, so withdrawal was not automatic; substantial compliance suffices.	No absolute right; substantial compliance satisfied, withdrawal untimely.
Was the plea bargain binding and properly accepted by the court?	Crymes argues the court did not clearly announce acceptance on the record.	The court’s substantial compliance and subsequent sentencing reflected acceptance of the plea bargain.	Substantial compliance established; plea bargain effectively accepted.
Did Crymes waive his right to appeal in the trial court's certification and related documents?	Crymes argues there is a right to appeal notwithstanding the waiver.	Crymes waived rights via the certification and Stipulations, Waivers & Admissions.	Crymes waived his right to appeal.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea bargains must be honored; State must perform as agreed)
Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Santobello rule applicable to Texas procedure)
Zapata v. State, 121 S.W.3d 66 (Tex. App.─San Antonio 2003) (acceptance of plea and timing under Rule 25.2 interplay)
Murray v. State, 302 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (case taken under advisement; right to withdraw depends on timing)
Ralls v. State, 205 S.W.2d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1947) (bench trial withdrawal rights before advisement)
Jackson v. State, 590 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (definition of taking case under advisement in bench trials)
Wissinger v. State, 702 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App.─Houston [1st Dist.] 1985) (record supports case taken under advisement for punishment)
Scott v. State, 860 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. App.─Dallas 1993) (timing of advisement aligns with punishment determination)
Thieleman v. State, 187 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (evidence of guilt concluded prior to advisement)