Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

711 S.W.2d 56

Crump v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 27, 1986

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1986-03-27

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1995

3 state decisions

Relies on Helms v. State · Christal v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-03-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*57OPINION

MURPHY, Justice.

¶2Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana. After his motion to suppress was denied, he entered a plea of nolo con-tendere and was sentenced to ten days confinement in the Harris County Jail, which was probated for six months. In two points of error appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

¶3It is unnecessary for us to address the merits of appellant’s two grounds of error, for it is clear that appellant has waived his right to appeal the issues raised therein. In Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that “[wjhere a plea of guilty is voluntarily and understandingly made, all nonjurisdictional defects including claimed deprivation of federal due process are waived.” Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d at 927. This rule applies with equal force to pleas of nolo contendere where the record does not reflect that a plea bargain was made. Christal v. State, 692 S.W.2d 656, 658-59 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (Opinion on Motion for Rehearing).

¶4We have reviewed the record in this case and find no evidence that appellant’s plea of nolo contendere was entered pursuant to a plea bargain. We are bound, therefore, by the rule in Helmsand hold that absent proof in the record of a plea bargain, appellant has preserved no error and therefore nothing is presented to this court for review.

¶5The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

¶6The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/711/sw2d/56 · .json · Public domain