Matthew Douglas Hayes v. State, 04-14-00879-CR

Appellant Matthews Hayes pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery from one transaction; PSI followed.
Sentencing occurred January 28, 2014, with final confinement term of seven years on September 9, 2014.
Appellant and state entered an agreement that sentence would not exceed ten years.
Trial court certified that plea was pursuant to an agreement and that appellant had no right to appeal.
Appellant filed timely motions for new trial challenging whether a deadly weapon was used/exhibited; motions denied by operation of law and appealed.
Court addresses whether appellate waiver of rights bars review and whether motions for new trial remain viable despite waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver validity of appeal after plea agreement	Hayes argues waiver was not knowingly intelligent	State contends waiver valid upon awareness of proceedings	Waiver may be invalid if not knowingly made
Whether waiver bars appeal of sufficiency claims	Waiver cannot bar challenges to evidence under article 1.15	Waiver should bar appellate review of sufficiency	Waiver does not bar motion for new trial or sufficiency appeal per case law
Whether motions for new trial can be pursued despite waiver	Motions for new trial remain viable after sentencing	Waiver extinguishes remedies other than direct appeal	Waiver does not eliminate right to file a motion for new trial

Ex parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (waiver considerations and awareness required for valid appellate waiver)
Lundgren v. State, 434 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (motions for new trial and appeals are distinct; waiver not automatic for new trial)
Ex parte Williams, 703 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (sufficiency challenge under 1.15 may be raised on appeal, not via habeas)
Ex parte Powell, 558 S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (habeas corpus not substitute for appeal)
Ex parte McGowen, 645 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (habeas cannot substitute for appeal)