Joseph Lee Taylor v. State
01-15-00800-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- Joseph Lee Taylor pled guilty to DWI (third-or-more offense) pursuant to a written plea agreement that recommended 26 years' confinement and stated, "Defendant waives right to appeal."
- Taylor signed written admonitions expressly waiving the 30-day period for a motion for new trial and his right to appeal; he admitted two prior felony enhancements.
- The trial court accepted the plea agreement, assessed punishment at 26 years, and certified that Taylor waived his right to appeal.
- Taylor filed a pro se motion for new trial and a notice of appeal; he argued ineffective assistance of counsel and voluntariness of the plea and sought a hearing on the new-trial motion.
- The Court of Appeals issued notice of intent to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Taylor replied that he retained the right to appeal at least the new-trial issues.
- The court concluded the waiver was valid (voluntary, knowing, intelligent) and that a plea-bargain waiver bars appeal without the trial court’s permission, so it dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appeal waiver | Waiver notwithstanding, Taylor contends he may appeal voluntariness/effective assistance/new-trial hearing | Waiver was part of plea agreement and was given knowingly; no right to appeal without court permission | Waiver valid; appeal barred absent trial court permission |
| Jurisdiction to hear appeal after waiver | Taylor claims at least new-trial issues (voluntariness, counsel effectiveness, denial of hearing) are appealable | Court lacks jurisdiction because plea-bargain waiver removed appellate right | Court lacks jurisdiction; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction |
| Effect of plea and admission to enhancements | Taylor implied counsel was ineffective regarding enhancement issues and punishment election | Record shows Taylor pled true to enhancements and agreed to recommendation | Plea and admissions demonstrate knowing acceptance of punishment recommendation; do not preserve appeal |
| Right to hearing on pro se new-trial motion | Taylor requested hearing; asserts denial was appealable | In plea-bargained cases denial of new-trial motion is not appealable without permission | Denial/overrule by operation of law does not create appellate jurisdiction absent permission |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discusses when appeal waivers bar appeals)
- Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standards for valid waiver of rights)
- Jones v. State, 488 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (upholding presentence waivers of appeal when record shows consideration)
- Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (waiver valid where exchanged for recommended sentence)
- Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (procedural rule on certification and dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction)
- Turley v. State, 242 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (plea-bargain cases: new-trial rulings not appealable without permission)
- Estrada v. State, 149 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (same: denial of motion for new trial not appealable in plea-bargained case)