Miguel E. Feraudy v. State
01-17-00106-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Miguel E. Feraudy pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation (cause no. 1512123) and violation of a protective order (cause no. 1512124); sentences: 8 years confinement on each count, concurrent.
- As part of plea negotiations, the State dismissed (nolle prossed) a third related charge (cause no. 1528330).
- The trial court’s written certifications in both cases stated each was a plea-bargain case and that the defendant has NO right of appeal; the judgments likewise stated "APPEAL WAIVED. NO PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED."
- The Court of Appeals initially abated one appeal to allow the trial court to clarify the certification; the trial court held a hearing confirming the charge-bargain arrangement and left the certifications unchanged.
- The appellate record contains no pretrial written motions ruled on nor any trial-court permission to appeal under Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant has a right to appeal after pleading guilty under the plea agreement | Feraudy sought to appeal his convictions/sentences (no specific pretrial motions in record) | State maintained these were plea-bargained convictions and appellant waived appeal rights | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction: no right to appeal shown |
| Whether dismissal of a related charge as part of negotiations makes this a charge bargain that limits appeal | Feraudy implied the appeal should proceed despite the nolle pros | State argued the plea was a charge bargain (guilty to two counts, third dismissed) | Court treated it as a charge bargain; appeal rights limited to pretrial motions or court permission |
| Whether trial-court certification was supported by the record | Appellant may have challenged accuracy | State and trial court confirmed certification at abatement hearing and left it unchanged | Certification deemed supported by record; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies |
| Whether the appellate court can consider merits despite plea-bargain certification | Appellant wanted appellate review | State argued appellate jurisdiction lacking under rule and precedent | Court cannot hear merits; must dismiss prohibited plea-bargain appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (distinguishes sentence and charge bargaining and appellate rights)
- Kennedy v. State, 297 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explains limits on appeals after plea bargains)
- Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial-court certification supported by record may be relied on)
- Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court of appeals must dismiss prohibited plea-bargain appeals)