SCOTT HUDDLESTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 11-20-00149-CR
Eleventh Court of Appeals
March 11, 2021
On Appeal from the 259th District Court, Jones County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 011934
Opinion filed March 11, 2021
Appellant, Scott Huddleston, entered into a plea-bargain agreement and pleaded guilty to the offense of assault on a public servant; he also pleaded true to an enhancement allegation. The trial court convicted Appellant, found the enhancement allegation to be true, and assessed punishment pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement at imprisonment for eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $3,000. In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant asserts that he had a statutory right to enter his guilty plea in open court and that his right to do so was a substantive right and was therefore not subject to the Texas Supreme Court‘s emergency orders authorizing a trial court to modify or suspend any and all procedures. We agree with Appellant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant‘s contention on appeal is that the trial court erred when it acted under the guise of the emergency orders issued by the Texas Supreme Court in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and required Appellant‘s plea hearing to be conducted via a Zoom videoconference. See Seventeenth Emergency Order Regarding COVID-19 State of Disaster, 609 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. 2020). Prior to the plea hearing, Appellant filed a motion to rescind the order setting his case on a Zoom videoconference plea docket. Appellant indicated that he did not consent to the conducting of the plea hearing via Zoom or by other videoconferencing methods. Appellant requested a continuance until he could appear in court, in person, and in
Appellant renewed his objections at the outset of the plea hearing. The trial court overruled Appellant‘s motion and objections and proceeded with the plea hearing via videoconference. Appellant was incarcerated at the Allred Unit at the time of the plea hearing and appeared via Zoom. Appellant‘s attorney, who was not present with Appellant at the prison unit, also appeared via Zoom. Before Appellant entered his guilty plea, the trial court and the attorneys discussed the preservation of Appellant‘s right to appeal the matters that he had presented in his motion. Appellant pleaded guilty subject to the reservation of his right to appeal. The trial court certified that, even though this was a plea-bargain case, it had given Appellant permission to appeal.
The above-referenced Seventeenth Emergency Order was in effect at the time of the plea hearing. That order provided in part as follows:
3. Subject only to constitutional limitations, all courts in Texas may in any case, civil or criminal—and must to avoid risk to court staff, parties, attorneys, jurors, and the public—without a participant‘s consent:
a. except as provided in paragraph (b), modify or suspend any and all deadlines and procedures, whether prescribed by statute, rule, or order, for a stated period ending no later than September 30, 2020;
b. [relates to Family Code and is not relevant here].
c. Allow or require anyone involved in any hearing, deposition, or other proceeding of any kind—including but not limited to a party, attorney, witness, court reporter, grand juror, or petit juror—to participate remotely, such as by teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or other means[.]
Seventeenth Emergency Order, 609 S.W.3d at 120. The order was enacted pursuant to the authority granted to the supreme court in Section 22.0035(b) of the Government Code. Id. at 120; see
Although Paragraph 3(c) appears on its face to authorize a trial court to require any party to participate in a proceeding via videoconferencing, we cannot hold that a defendant in a criminal case can be required, pursuant to the Seventeenth Emergency Order, to appear via Zoom or by other videoconferencing methods over the defendant‘s objection. As asserted by Appellant and as recently determined by the Court of Criminal Appeals, neither
A defendant‘s right to appear in person and in open court is not merely a procedural matter but, rather, is a substantive right provided for by statute. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant in a criminal prosecution (other than one involving the possibility of the death penalty) has the right, upon entering a plea, to waive the right of trial by jury (1) if the waiver is made in person by the defendant in open court with the consent of the prosecutor and the trial court or (2) if the provisions of Article 27.19 have been met.
In the case before us, that statutory condition was not met. Appellant did not consent to the use of videoconference. In fact, he specifically objected to its use and cited Article 27.18. Like the consent requirement involved in Ogg, the consent requirement in Article 27.18 is not merely procedural. Therefore, the Seventeenth Emergency Order did not alter or affect Appellant‘s statutory right to be personally present at his guilty-plea hearing, to enter his plea in person and in open court, and to refuse to consent to the disposition of his case via a videoconference hearing. See Ogg, 2021 WL 800761, at *3. Because the condition set forth in Article 27.18(a)(1) was not met, the trial court was not authorized to accept Appellant‘s guilty plea. See id. at *3-4. Furthermore, because the trial court was not authorized to accept Appellant‘s guilty plea, that plea is voidable. See Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 557-58 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); see also Ogg, 2021 WL 800761, at *3 (a judge‘s lack of authority may invalidate the proceeding itself); Lilly v. State, 365 S.W.3d 321, 328, 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (holding that issue related to failure to hold a public trial was preserved for review despite guilty plea and that judgment should be reversed and cause remanded for a new trial). We sustain Appellant‘s sole issue.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
March 11, 2021
W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE
Do not publish. See
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1 Williams, J., not participating.