560 S.W.3d 640
Tex. Crim. App.2018Background
- Defendant Jose Rivera was tried for misdemeanor family-violence assault; he did not waive a jury trial and the State did not give written consent to any jury waiver before a plea.
- During the jury trial, after some testimony, Rivera changed his plea from not guilty to guilty; the court instructed the jury to return a guilty verdict, which it did.
- The trial court then dismissed the jury, admonished Rivera, obtained waivers (including a belated jury-waiver), heard punishment evidence, and placed Rivera on six months’ deferred adjudication community supervision.
- The State objected after the court announced deferred adjudication, arguing a jury verdict precluded a later judicial order deferring adjudication.
- The Third Court of Appeals denied the State’s mandamus petition; the State sought mandamus relief in the Court of Criminal Appeals to compel rescission of the deferred-adjudication order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could assess punishment after a guilty plea entered before a jury in a misdemeanor case | State: once defendant pled guilty before the jury, the trial was a unitary proceeding and the jury should assess punishment | Rivera: trial court may assess punishment; felony-only statutes don't control misdemeanors and court can exercise discretion | Court: denied mandamus on this point—no clear right shown; existing felony precedents (Article 26.14) do not conclusively control misdemeanors here |
| Whether the trial court could grant deferred adjudication after a jury returned a guilty verdict | State: trial court lacked authority; State did not consent in writing to waive jury, so guilt resolution and judgment entry were ministerial jury functions | Rivera/trial court: relied on State v. Sosa and exercised discretion to accept plea and defer adjudication | Court: granted mandamus in part—trial court lacked authority to defer adjudication after jury verdict and must rescind the deferred-adjudication order |
| Whether the State had an adequate remedy at law (i.e., appeal) | State: cannot appeal deferred-adjudication orders in the Third Court of Appeals, leaving mandamus as sole remedy | Rivera: no specific alternative remedy | Court: agreed State lacked adequate appellate remedy in Hays County under controlling precedent; mandamus appropriate to rescind order |
| Whether the trial court could enter a judgment non obstante verdicto or otherwise nullify a jury guilty verdict | State: verdict must be entered on minutes; court may not substitute its own judgment absent new-trial motion | Rivera/trial court: attempted to treat guilty plea as converting proceedings and allow judicial deferral | Court: court cannot enter judgment non obstante verdicto; only way to undo jury verdict is proper motion for new trial—none was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re State ex rel. Tharp, 393 S.W.3d 751 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defendant who pleads guilty during felony jury trial converts proceeding into unitary trial requiring jury assessment of punishment)
- Ring v. State, 450 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (jury’s role to assess punishment when plea changes mid-trial)
- Basaldua v. State, 481 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (same principle)
- Frame v. State, 615 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (same principle)
- Ricondo v. State, 634 S.W.2d 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (procedure when plea changes during trial)
- Griggs v. State, 451 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (instructing jury to return guilty verdict after plea)
- Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (same)
- Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (same)
- State v. Savage, 933 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (trial court lacks authority to enter a different judgment than jury’s verdict)
- Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (court cannot grant judgment notwithstanding jury verdict)
- Reed v. State, 644 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (deferred adjudication limited to defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere to the court)
- State v. Wilcox, 993 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (order deferring adjudication not a sentence; State lacks appellate remedy under Article 44.01(b))