Eric Griffin Moore v. State
12-14-00369-CR
Tex. App.Mar 2, 2015Background
- Appellant Eric Griffin Moore pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 18 years in TDCJ on each count.
- The trial court signed two appeal-certification forms (Sept. 17, 2014 and Dec. 11, 2014) indicating the case was a plea-bargain case and stating the defendant had no right of appeal, with handwritten clarifications about guilt vs. sentencing.
- Clerk’s record includes a "Felony–Defendant’s Plea of Guilty Waiver, Stipulation and Judicial Confession" containing a presentence waiver of the right to appeal, signed by Moore and counsel, but without express language showing a plea bargain or state consideration for the waiver.
- Other plea paperwork is inconsistent: an "Admonitions to Defendant" form references a plea-bargain punishment but is crossed out and the waiver-of-appeal checkbox is blank; an "Agreed Punishment Recommendation" is crossed out and unsigned.
- Because Moore executed the purported waiver on Sept. 17, 2014 and sentencing occurred Dec. 11, 2014, the record does not show Moore knew his punishment at the time of the waiver or that the State provided consideration for the waiver.
- The Court of Appeals found the trial-court certification potentially defective and abated the appeal, remanding to the trial court to determine whether a valid waivable plea agreement or consideration existed, and to re-certify the defendant’s right to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore validly waived his right to appeal by signing a presentence waiver | The State/record implies the signed waiver and certifications show Moore waived appeal rights | Moore argues (by record implication) that waiver invalid because no plea bargain or state consideration shown and waiver was pre-sentencing | Court held waiver not shown valid on this record; certification may be defective and appeal abated/remanded for factfinding |
| Whether a presentence waiver is enforceable absent a plea bargain or consideration | State would rely on waiver document to bar appeal | Moore contends presentence waivers are unenforceable unless part of plea bargain or supported by state consideration | Court applied precedent: presentence waivers are enforceable only if tied to plea bargain or consideration; record lacks evidence of either |
| Whether the trial-court certification accurately reflects defendant’s right to appeal | Certification states no right to appeal (plea-bargain case) | Moore’s signed documents and crossed-out plea paperwork create ambiguity about certification accuracy | Court found certification potentially defective under Dears and ordered remand for clarification |
| Remedy when certification is defective or record is ambiguous about waiver | State may ask court to dismiss appeal if waiver valid | Moore benefits from abatement to resolve factual ambiguity | Court abated the appeal, ordered hearing, required findings/conclusions, re-certification, and supplemental records within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (defective certification comparison to record)
- Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (presentencing waivers enforceable if part of plea bargain or state consideration)
- Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; presentencing waiver enforceable with consideration)
- Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (valid waiver prevents appeal without trial-court consent)
- Washington v. State, 363 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (per curiam) (generally invalidates presentencing waivers absent plea bargain or consideration)
- Nichols v. State, 349 S.W.3d 612 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (presentencing waiver as part of plea bargain can bar appeal even if waiver language addresses only guilt)