Marcelino Edwards Osuna v. State, 14-15-00871-CR

Appellant Marcelino Osuna was indicted for aggravated robbery while out on bail for a pending capital murder charge; he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery without a punishment recommendation from the State.
Osuna executed a written waiver and judicial confession and received oral admonishments from the trial court about rights and the punishment range; he acknowledged understanding and denied coercion.
The court withheld a finding of guilt pending a presentence investigation (PSI); at a later hearing Osuna admitted participating in the robbery and explained facts of involvement.
The State informed the court it would present evidence of the capital murder during the punishment/PSI phase but would leave the capital murder charge open pending the PSI and sentencing.
At punishment, testimony established Osuna was arrested during the robbery, was wearing an ankle monitor from the capital-bail condition, and two handguns were found; the court sentenced Osuna to life in prison.
Several months later the State dismissed the capital murder charge.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Osuna’s guilty plea to aggravated robbery was involuntary/coerced because the State left the capital-murder charge pending	Osuna: Plea was "inherently coerced" by the State’s decision to keep capital charge open; evidence on capital murder was weak, so he would not have pled if he knew evidence quality	State: Plea was knowingly and voluntarily made after admonishments; choosing a lesser plea to avoid risk is tactical, not coercion	Court: Plea was knowing and voluntary; no coercion shown; trial court did not err
Whether appeal should be abated for further fact-finding on voluntariness	Osuna: Requests abatement and remand for fact-finding on plea voluntariness	State: No authority supports abatement for new fact-finding; record is adequate	Court: Denied—briefing inadequate and abatement to develop new evidence is not authorized

Griffin v. State, 703 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (voluntariness of plea judged by totality of circumstances)
Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (proper admonishments create prima facie showing plea was knowing and voluntary)
Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (signed admonishments place heavy burden on defendant to prove plea involuntary)
Chapa v. State, 407 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (same principle regarding admonishments and burden)
Perez v. State, 608 S.W.2d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (pleading to lesser offense to avoid greater penalty is a tactical decision)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (defendant is not entitled to withdraw plea because of later-discovered misapprehension of prosecution strength)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (valid plea must be voluntary and intelligent choice among alternatives)
Nava v. State, 480 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (abatement cannot be used to develop new testimony/evidence not presented at trial)
Lewis v. State, 711 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (trial court not authorized to hold evidentiary hearing on abatement to create new record)
Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (appellate briefing must cite authority and develop legal argument)