Melissa Ann Munoz v. State, 05-14-00392-CR

Munoz pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (an automobile), signed a judicial confession, and orally and in writing acknowledged understanding the charge and punishment range.
At the plea hearing Munoz requested deferred adjudication and outpatient treatment rather than inpatient (Nexus); the court found she left the scene and made false statements, found a deadly-weapon enhancement, and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment.
Munoz filed a motion for new trial claiming her plea was involuntary because she did not understand its consequences; she submitted a sworn affidavit describing limited pre-plea consultation with counsel, confusion at the plea hearing, and a desire for inpatient treatment.
The trial court set and reset the new-trial hearing; Munoz had been transferred to TDC so a bench warrant was issued but she was not present at the hearing held on the last permissible day.
At the hearing defense counsel proffered Munoz would testify consistent with her affidavit, the court admitted the affidavit and the plea transcript into evidence, and the court denied the motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court failed to procure Munoz’s presence at motion-for-new-trial hearing in violation of Art. 33.03	Munoz: absence denied opportunity to explain plea was involuntary; she had not waived presence	State: hearing proceeded with counsel’s proffer and affidavit; no objection by State to affidavit admission; trial court could assess voluntariness from plea transcript and affidavit	Court: Issue waived for appeal because defense counsel did not specifically object to proceeding in her absence and obtain a ruling; alternatively, any error was harmless because affidavit and plea transcript provided the same facts and no injury shown
Whether Munoz’s plea was involuntary (lack of understanding of possible incarceration)	Munoz: confusion, limited counsel contact, and affidavit show she did not appreciate incarceration risk	State: plea colloquy, written admonishments, and judicial confession show she understood charge and punishment	Court: Denied new trial — plea was voluntary; trial court could assess credibility and found no harm from absence at hearing

Routier v. State, 112 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Article 33.03 right to be present at trial stages)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (preservation requires specific timely complaint and ruling)
Mares v. State, 571 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (harmless-error analysis for absence of defendant; actual injury must be shown)
Phillips v. State, 288 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956) (defendant’s presence required at new-trial hearing absent waiver)
Coons v. State, 758 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (failure to object at hearing waives Article 33.03 right)