Maribel Saldivar v. State
542 S.W.3d 43
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant was stopped for a traffic violation; police found 15 hidden packages with >14 kg of heroin/cocaine; appellant admitted smuggling drugs from Mexico for $12,000.
- Indictment originally charged possession of at least 400 grams of heroin with intent to deliver; later reduced to possession of 200–400 grams with intent to deliver.
- Appellant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge without an agreed punishment recommendation; trial court accepted plea and sentenced appellant to 25 years’ imprisonment and no fine.
- At plea and sentencing hearings there was confusion in the written plea paperwork/admonishments about the applicable punishment range (10 years minimum for 200–400 g vs. 15 years minimum for ≥400 g); the court corrected the written admonishments and re-asked the plea.
- The judgment omitted assessment of a statutorily-mandatory (though discretionary in amount) fine; the State agreed a fine should have been assessed and both parties later suggested the plea be set aside, but the court reviewed independent of that concession.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — whether trial court had jurisdiction though indictment returned by a different district court's grand jury | Saldivar: trial court lacked jurisdiction because grand jury impaneled by different district court returned indictment | State: presentment to county district clerk and filing with trial court conferred jurisdiction | Court: No jurisdictional defect; presentment to Harris County District Clerk and transfer to 184th D.C. vested jurisdiction |
| Voluntariness of guilty plea — whether confusion about punishment range rendered plea involuntary | Saldivar: "persistent confusion" about applicable punishment range meant plea was not knowing/voluntary | State: court corrected written and gave correct oral admonishments; substantial compliance satisfied | Court: Substantial compliance; prima facie valid plea; appellant failed to show she did not understand consequences; plea voluntary |
| Validity of judgment — whether omission of mandatory fine renders judgment void | Saldivar: judgment void for omitting required fine; seeks either new punishment hearing or withdrawal of plea | State: agreed a fine should have been assessed; in letter suggested plea set aside | Court: Omission renders judgment void as outside statutory range for punishment; remand required for new punishment hearing |
| Remedy — whether plea should be set aside or specific performance (remand for punishment only) | Saldivar (later): urged setting aside plea relying on Thomas | State (cursory): agreed plea should be set aside | Court: Distinguished Thomas; specific performance is possible here because plea terms (10-year minimum and fine) were correctly understood; affirmed conviction and remanded for new punishment hearing only |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dotson, 224 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presentment to judge or clerk vests jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Alexander, 861 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. Crim. App.) (county district clerk serves all district courts in county)
- Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App.) (duly admonished plea creates prima facie showing of knowing, voluntary plea)
- Robinson v. State, 739 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. Crim. App.) (incorrect punishment admonishment harmless if sentence within both stated and actual maxima)
- Ibarra v. State, 177 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (fine must be orally pronounced at sentencing)
- Lombardo v. State, 524 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (failure to assess mandatory fine renders judgment void)
- Thomas v. State, 516 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. Crim. App.) (when mutual mistake undermines negotiated plea, remedy may require setting aside plea rather than specific performance)
- Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plea-bargain remedies framed by contract principles)