Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Edmund Kahookele pleaded no contest to engaging in organized criminal activity. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Kahookele on community supervision for 10 years. Nine years later, the trial court adjudicated Kahookele guilty and imposed a 20-year sentence. The trial court issued Kahookele a certificate of appeal. The certification stated that the case was not a plea bargain case, and that Kahookele had a right of appeal. Kahookele argues on appeal that the 20-year sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The state argues that the trial court’s certification is defective, because this is a plea bargain case. The state argues that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) bars Kahookele’s appeal, and it should be dismissed. HOLDING:Appeal dismissed. Though a defendant doesn’t have a right to appeal the revocation of ordinary probation based on a plea bargain, it is “not so clear” when a defendant bargains for deferred adjudication and then tries to appeal a subsequent adjudication of guilt. In Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996), an appeal in such a case was not permitted under an earlier version of the same statute, but two subsequent cases � Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), and Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) � and seemed to narrow the holding as further amendments to the statute were made. Under Vidaurri and Woods, a defendant who bargains for deferred adjudication and is later adjudicated guilty following a hearing on the state’s motion has a conditional right of appeal. Thus, a defendant may not appeal issues related to the conviction, but may appeal issues unrelated to the conviction. At the time the trial court certified Kahookele’s right to appeal, that court could not accurately certify that this was a plea bargain case and that he had no right of appeal, because Kahookele had the right to appeal issues unrelated to his conviction. Under the circumstances, the trial court did not err by choosing the option that preserved Kahookele’s right of appeal. Nonetheless, the question remains whether Kahookele’s contention that his sentence was cruel and unusual is an issue relating to his conviction, and thus outside the scope of his right to appeal. The court rules that the issue does relate to his conviction, as the sentence is a party of the judgment of conviction. OPINION:Puryear, J.; Law, C.J., Patterson and Puryear, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.