noting that "the record of the plea hearing revealed it to be the understanding and agreement of all concerned" that defendant could appeal adverse ruling on motion to suppress
How later courts described this case
- noting that "the record of the plea hearing revealed it to be the understanding and agreement of all concerned" that defendant could appeal adverse ruling on motion to suppress
- “Having thus encouraged pleas of guilty and nolo contendere in exchange for the right to appeal contested pretrial issues, the Legislature surely contemplated a meaningful appeal—one that addresses and decides each issue on its merits. . . . Just as the plea itself no longer waives the right to complain of pretrial rulings on appeal, so the confession or admission will not bar an appellate court from reaching the merits of the complaint.”
- "If a defendant falls within the [proviso to Article 44.02], he has no right of appeal at all without the permission of the trial court save and except the appeal from rulings on certain pretrial matters"
- “When made, the confession or admission is a necessary and concomitant part of the whole ritual of the guilty plea trial. The plea no longer intrinsically waives the right to complain of pretrial rulings on appeal, so the confession or admission will not bar an appellate court from reaching the merits of the complaint.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEAGUE, Judge,
concurring.
In this instance, the majority opinion holds, for purposes of Art. 44.02, Y.A.C. C.P., that if the defendant files a written pretrial motion to suppress, after which a hearing is held thereon but the trial judge denies or overrules the motion, and thereafter the defendant enters into a plea bargain agreement, which entitles him to appeal the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, and the plea bargain agreement is consummated, if there is an appeal, an appellate court will review the merits of the defendant’s contention, that the trial court erred in denying or overruling the pretrial motion to suppress, without resorting to any sort of legal “technicality” in order to avoid addressing the issue whether the trial court erred in denying or overruling the motion to suppress. See and compare Dees v. State, 676 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Morgan v. State, 608 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Velasquez v. State, 608 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); and Cleveland v. State, 588 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
With the above qualifying remarks, I join the majority opinion.
However, but in order that there be no mistake or misunderstanding about what the majority opinion is actually holding, it, the majority, should expressly overrule the following cases of this Court: Strother v. State, 619 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Mooney v. State, 615 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Brewster v. State, 606 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Haney v. State, 588 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Prochaska v. State, 587 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Mitchell v. State, 586 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Salazar v. State, 582 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Ferguson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
Additionally, but to further eliminate any question about what it is holding, it, the majority, should also expressly overrule language in the following cases which appears to state or hold that which is contrary to what it is holding in this cause: Snyder v. State, 629 S.W.2d 930 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Brown v. State, 617 S.W.2d 196 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).
With the above qualifications, and recommendations, I respectfully, but wholeheartedly, join the majority opinion.