630 S.W.3d 439
Tex. App.2021Background
- Appellant Eluid Lira pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain to assault on a public servant with an enhancement found true; punishment assessed at 8 years TDCJ and a $5,000 fine.
- Lira moved to rescind a Zoom videoconference plea docket, expressly refusing to consent to a videoconference plea and requesting an in-person hearing with his attorney.
- The trial court overruled Lira’s motion and proceeded with the guilty-plea hearing by Zoom (Lira and counsel appeared remotely from a prison unit and elsewhere).
- The court accepted Lira’s guilty plea subject to a reservation of his right to appeal and certified permission to appeal despite the plea bargain.
- The court conducted the hearing under the Texas Supreme Court’s Seventeenth Emergency Order (invoking Gov’t Code §22.0035(b)), which authorized courts to modify or suspend procedures and to require remote participation to avoid COVID-19 risks.
- The court of appeals held Article 27.18’s written-consent condition for videoconference pleas is substantive and was not met, so the emergency order could not authorize forcing Lira to plead remotely; it reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may require a criminal defendant to enter a guilty plea by videoconference over the defendant’s objection under the Texas Supreme Court’s COVID-19 emergency order/§22.0035(b) | Lira: He has a statutory substantive right to enter his plea in person and in open court; Article 27.18 requires written consent for videoconference pleas, which he withheld. | State/Trial court: The Seventeenth Emergency Order (under §22.0035(b)) authorized courts to modify or suspend procedures and to require remote participation without a participant’s consent to protect health and safety. | The court held the emergency order cannot alter substantive statutory rights; Article 27.18’s consent requirement was not met, so the court lacked authority to accept the plea. Plea is voidable; judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (a judge’s lack of authority may render a plea proceeding voidable)
- Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (failure to hold a public trial may be preserved for review despite a guilty plea)