Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In 1999, Appellant Ronald Thacker Hargesheimer was charged with indecency with a child. In exchange for his guilty plea, the trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt, and he received 10 years of community supervision. In 2003, the state filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt, claiming nine violations of his community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, appellant pleaded true to each of the nine allegations, including failure to pay court costs, publication fees, sex-offender fees, probation fees and costs associated with sex-offender treatment; failure to obtain a GED; failure to report; having contact with his minor daughter; and frequenting adult bookstores. Appellant was represented by appointed counsel at the hearing, but neither his attorney nor the state’s counsel made a recommendation as to punishment. During the proceeding, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation, convicted him of the original charge, and sentenced him to 16 years in prison. The trial court certified that appellant had waived his right to appeal. Appellant filed a pro se general notice of appeal of the trial court’s revocation proceeding. HOLDING:The court of appeals erred in denying appellant’s general notice of appeal of the trial court’s revocation proceeding solely on the basis of an underlying plea bargain from the original proceeding. The trial judge is instructed to recertify this case by designating it as “not a plea-bargain case” on the certification form. The court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal, subject to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12 �5(b). “The progression of the caselaw, in combination with the introduction of the certification process, has created confusion among the lower courts about the applicability of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) to plea-bargain deferred adjudication cases that have moved to final adjudication. In such cases, rather than continue down the road of applying the restrictions of Rule 25.2(a)(2) to appeals that are related to conviction and maintaining an exception for claims that are unrelated to conviction, we hold that Rule 25.2(a)(2) extends only to appeals from the initial plea of guilty in exchange for deferred adjudication, and not to appeals from the proceeding on the motion to adjudicate guilt. We believe that keeping the final adjudication of guilt distinct from the plea bargain better represents the actual substance of the plea bargain and reduces the potential for confusion in the certification process.” Rather than complicating the certification process by maintaining an exception to Rule 25.2(a)(2) for certain appeals from plea-bargain deferred adjudication community supervision cases that have been finally adjudicated, the court believes that the better course is to treat the final adjudication hearing as distinct from the underlying plea bargain to the original charge. In holding that a defendant’s underlying plea bargain for deferred adjudication community supervision will no longer trigger the application of Rule 25.2(a)(2)’s restrictions to his appeal of the revocation proceeding, the court overrules Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), and eliminates the need for the exception enunciated in Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Now, once a defendant who enters into a plea bargain for deferred adjudication community supervision decides not to appeal the order deferring adjudication, the restrictions of Rule 25.2(a)(2) are no longer applicable. After adjudication of guilt, the defendant’s appeal will be restricted only by Article 42.12 � 5(b), which prevents him from appealing the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt in the first place. OPINION:Meyers, J., for a unanimous court. CONCURRENCE:Johnson, J., filed a concurring opinion. “The legislature created this conundrum when it chose to deny an appeal of the decision to adjudicate. If and until the legislature changes its choice in the matter, only our courts of appeals, knowing what issues were raised on appeal, will, unlike the trial court, have sufficient information to sort through appeals from adjudication hearings and separate permitted appeals from prohibited ones.”

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.