Jones, Andrew Olevia, PD-0587-15

Background

Andrew Olevia Jones pleaded guilty to assault of a family member (charged as a second-degree felony with a prior family-member assault conviction and a separate felony enhancement) and requested a presentence investigation (PSI) and a sentencing hearing. The trial court later sentenced him to 15 years TDCJ.
The written plea forms included a boilerplate waiver of appeal and a preprinted advisory that permission to appeal is required if punishment does not exceed the prosecutor’s recommendation; the plea form also had a handwritten “WOAR” (without agreed recommendation).
At the plea colloquies the trial court twice accepted guilty pleas but did not admonish Jones that he had waived his right to appeal; the court misstated the applicable punishment range at the first colloquy and later corrected the range but conflated the statutory posture (second-degree offense with an enhancement).
The State abandoned one enhancement allegation before sentencing. The court of appeals dismissed Jones’s attempted appeal, concluding the State’s abandonment constituted consideration supporting an enforceable waiver under Ex Parte Broadway.
Jones sought discretionary review arguing the record does not show the waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and that Broadway was misapplied; he urged the Court to follow Ex Parte Delaney and related precedents that invalidate pre-punishment waivers absent a bargained-for, specified punishment or other circumstances that let the defendant know the consequences of waiver.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jones)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a pre-sentencing waiver of appellate rights is valid when the State abandoned an enhancement before sentencing	Waiver was not knowing/voluntary because it was made before sentencing, with misstatements about punishment, and there is no record that abandonment was consideration for the waiver	The State’s abandonment of an enhancement constituted consideration that made the pre-punishment waiver knowing and enforceable (per Ex Parte Broadway)	Court of appeals treated abandonment as consideration and dismissed appeal; petitioner argues this was error and asks CCA to apply Delaney/Reedy line instead
Whether boilerplate written forms and an unsigned "Plea Information" entry demonstrate a plea bargain sufficient to support an appellate waiver	The plea papers (boilerplate waiver, handwritten WOAR, unsigned Plea Information) do not show a plea bargain or that the waiver was exchanged for consideration	The court of appeals inferred consideration from the prosecution’s abandonment of an enhancement	Petitioner contends the record lacks evidence the waiver was part of a bargain; therefore waiver is invalid under Delaney and related cases
Whether inaccurate or incomplete court colloquies invalidate a pre-punishment appeal waiver	Misstatements of range and failure to admonish about appeal undermine any claim that waiver was knowing and intelligent	The State relies on Broadway’s allowance of waivers when consideration is shown, despite pre-punishment timing	Petitioner relies on Dickey/Delaney/Washington to argue such procedural defects prevent a valid pre-sentencing waiver

Key Cases Cited

Ex Parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (held a defendant may waive the entire appeal pre-sentencing when the State gives consideration for the waiver)
Ex Parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (held unbargained pre-punishment waivers may be invalid because defendant cannot know punishment or anticipate trial errors)
Ex Parte Dickey, 543 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (op. on orig. submission) (criticized routine pretrial appeal waivers where rights had not matured)
Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (upheld waiver signed post-conviction where defendant was aware of trial events and there was an agreed punishment recommendation)
Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (upheld waiver signed after punishment assessment because defendant then knew punishment and potential errors)
Ex Parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (surveyed pretrial-waiver precedents and emphasized waivers are valid only when defendant is aware of trial proceedings and consequences)