James Arthur Shane III v. State
09-14-00450-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 26, 2015Background
- James Arthur Shane III pleaded guilty to two counts of intoxication assault, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of a controlled substance (deferred adjudication), and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under a plea agreement.
- The State recommended a punishment cap of 20 years for each charge; the trial court sentenced Shane within that cap (16 years for each intoxication assault; 10 years for weapon and felon-in-possession counts), with sentences to run concurrently.
- Shane pleaded true to an enhancement alleging a prior felony; the trial court found the enhancement true.
- Shane filed notices of appeal; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues, and Shane was notified of his right to file a pro se response but did not.
- The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to appeal stated (incorrectly) that this was not a plea-bargain case.
- The court of appeals reviewed the record and determined the certification was inaccurate and that, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2, it therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Shane's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear appeals when the trial-court certification states the case is not a plea-bargain case but the record shows a plea agreement with a punishment cap | Implicitly that the certification allows appeal (no specific written pretrial motions filed; certification stated not a plea-bargain) | The record shows a plea-bargain (punishment cap agreed); under Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) appeals are limited and Shane did not file written motions or obtain permission to appeal | Certification was inaccurate compared to the record; because this is a plea-bargain case and Shane had no permitted appellate grounds, the appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether a punishment-cap plea qualifies as a plea bargain under Rule 25.2 | (No distinct contrary claim preserved) | A punishment cap is a plea agreement under Rule 25.2 and case law | The court reaffirmed that an agreement to a punishment cap is a plea bargain and limits appellate rights under Rule 25.2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duty to file an Anders brief when appellate issues are frivolous)
- Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (certification is defective if facially correct but inaccurate compared to record)
- Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808 (an agreement to a punishment cap is a plea bargain for Rule 25.2 purposes)
- Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675 (describing limits on appeals from plea-bargain cases under Rule 25.2)