Deleon, Ex Parte Jesus
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 817
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Applicant Jesus De Leon pled guilty in two Cameron County cases to aggravated sexual assault of a child, sexual performance by a child, and numerous counts of possession of child pornography under plea agreements that capped punishment at 75 years and allowed concurrent sentencing; co-defendant Adrian De Leon's indictment in one case was to be dismissed.
- The trial court told De Leon that if the plea was accepted, he could not appeal without the court's permission, and the agreements stated the State would not oppose concurrent sentences and would dismiss the co-defendant's indictment.
- Written plea papers and the court's detailed judgments memorialized the cap, non-opposition to concurrent sentences, and dismissal of the co-defendant's indictment, but did not clearly reflect an unambiguous waiver of appeal; the handwritten language in the plea forms was ambiguous regarding waiver.
- De Leon obtained the trial court's permission to appeal, and a notice of appeal was filed; the State later moved to enforce the waiver and argued that De Leon reneged by appealing.
- The State reindicted Adrian De Leon after the appeal was granted, contradicting the plea terms that the co-defendant's charges would be dismissed.
- A habeas corpus proceeding followed; the habeas court found no breach or that relief was inappropriate; this Court subsequently considered whether waiver of appeal was an explicit/implicit term of the plea and whether the pleas were involuntary due to the State’s actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of appeal was an element of the plea agreements | De Leon: waiver of appeal was not an essential element; trial court permission controlled appeal rights. | State: waiver of appeal was explicit in the plea agreements and binding. | Waiver of appeal was not a binding element; permission to appeal controlled. |
| Whether reindictment of co-defendant rendered the pleas involuntary | State breached the plea by reindicting co-defendant Adrian after De Leon appealed. | State argues De Leon breached first by appealing; hence no breach and no involuntariness. | State breach occurred; pleas not voluntary due to breach; remedy is return to pre-plea positions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alzarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (boiler-plate waiver contradicted by trial-record intent to permit appeal)
- Willis v. State, 121 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court permission to appeal controls over written waiver)
- Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appeal rights not triggered by waiver where trial court consent governs)
- Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987) (plea bargains bind State and defendant to bargain terms)
- Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (remedies when negotiated pleas are breached)