Balderas, Roque

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 4, 2015
DocketWR-53,719-03
StatusPublished

This text of Balderas, Roque (Balderas, Roque) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Balderas, Roque, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Eause No. 7759~A

:l\\ THE 259th DISTRHE@EW

JoNr-:_s couNT\/, TE)

EX PARTE

RUQUE BALDERAB HDN. BRUUKS HAGLER

wmmwmwszwm

“\b@iAeosfa,Clerk

RESPDNSE TU RECUMMENDATIUN TU DENV RELIEF

EUMES NUU APPLIEANT RUQUE BALDERAS in response to the order of the court recommending denial of relief of Balderas' application

For writ of habeas corpus.

SUMMARV

Balderas applied For relief in an application For writ ot habeas corpus on the ground that his sentence of two years on cause No. 7759 is already discharged. The State alleges, and the court presumably agrees, that Balderas was ordered to serve the two year sentence consecutively with his original sentence of twenty years. In other words, the two year sentence would begin upon completion of his original twenty year sentence. In support ot this position, the State, and presumably the court, relies on pages 2 and 3 of the judgment. (attached, marked as 41 and MZ at bottom right corner) These pages order Balderas to serve the two year sentence consecutively with his original twenty year sentence.

Balderas only discovered the additional pages to the judgmentx upon receiving the packet From the district clerk, mailed to him Un May 18; 2015. Having read these additional pages, Balderas understands the State‘s position, but disagrees For the following reasons.

A§EUMENT

Un November 10, 19987 Balderas appeared in court and reached a

plea agreement with the State. In this agreement, it was agreed

Balderas would receive "time credit back to the date of oftense,

Flat time, time served, not subject to forfeiture". See attached agreement marked 54 on bottom right corner. The agreement is

signed by Balderas, the attorney tor the State, and the presiding judge. The agreement is dated November 10, 1998.

"Time served“ is commonly used to mean that the sentence is tinished, especially when a defendant agrees to plead guilty in Exchange For "time served“. The language ot the written-in sentence ot the agreement clearly indicates that the parties were attempting to avoid any confusion of the tact that the sentence was concluded. Nowhere is it stated that the time applies to any other sentence, applies after'the conclusion of any other sentence, nor is any other cause or sentence referred to. Nowhere does the record show that the Statevintended, at the time, that the sens tence be served consecutively, nor does the court make any mention ot it.

[A] constant factor is that when a plea rests in any signiTicant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it Can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be tulfilled. Santobello v. New Vork, AUA US 257,

30 L.Ed 2d 427, 92 S.Et. A95, 499 (1971). "Time served" was part of the promise and inducement tor Balderas to plead guilty, and he and the other parties agreed to it.

Plea bargain agreements are contractual in nature, and are to be construed accordingly. They bind the parties, and, more import- antly, the court, too, is bound once [it] accepts the plea agree- ment. Q§_y{ Earcia, 606 F.Bd 209 (Eth Cir. 2010)

Because contract law controls the plea»agreennant, the liand-quritten

notes control, and any vague or ambiguous terms are construed more tavorably to the person to whom they are ottered. See generally Blackstone's Volume I, Law - lts Uriginz Nature and Development & Eontracts=

The pages referred to by the State (attached as 41 and 42), signed on November 12, 1998 by the judge, are not part of the contract, and in Fact have no other signatories. The judge was obligated to hold to the agreement reached in court, that he signed, So the portion of the judgment requiring Balderas to serve the sen- tence consecutively must be removed.

Alternatively, because the plea agreement was violated, Bal-

deras should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty.

PRAVER Balderas prays this court grant his application For writ of habeas corpus, issue the writ, and orderwhim released trom the

Texas Department of Briminal Justice.

Respectt`ully, g /~ZO/;

é§gue Bazderas, probes

TDEJ#'752345 26& FM 3478 Huntsville, TX 77320

. _ - v __ ' . ' ;‘.»‘»L”FSS

CAUSE NO. 7759

'I'HE STATE OF TEXAS , IN THE 259TH DISTRIC'K_` '

VS. COURT OF ROQUE BALDERAS JONES COUNTY, TEXAS

JUDGMENT ON PLEA OF GUILTY (}R NOLO CONTENDERE BEFORE COURT WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL wage Presiding; QUAY F. PARKER ' rare ofJu`dgmem; NOVEMBER 10, 1998 Attorney Attomey-for for State: WILLIAM JUVRUD Defendant: SCOTT FERGUSON - OH`ense Convicted ofz ESCAPE ' Section 38.01 et seq. Texas Penal Code Date OH`ense

Degree: 3RD DEGREE Committed: JULY 12, 1996 Charging Instrument: INDICTMENT » Plea: GUIL_TY

Terms ofPlea . Bargain (In Detail) : TWO (2) yrs. TDCJ~ID; $1_84.25 to be laid out at SSD/day; credit for

flat time served from date of offense - not subject to forfeiture

'P_lea to Enhancement Findings on Para_g_raph(s) ;TRUE Enhancement; TRUE _Findings on Use

ofDeadly Weapon :NONE .

Date Se_ntence " imposed : NOVEMBER 10, 1998 ~ Costs: $184.25

Puitishrnent and P-lace of confinement TWO (2) YEARS TDCJ~ID

Date to Commence: SEE BELOW

ljran Credited:_ 07/12/96 through 11/10/98 inclusive Fl

7 . amy 019 C" 19&

:/ 1 %MQ

l'/;-

(`)

. NSTR! 1>

-‘f:*;: firing § y` C'T CLERK. JONES CO. leXAS § 1 `_" epury §

‘M

'_!L'SG

rosa Amoum orREST`ITUTioN; - 0 - ATTY FEE; -0- MEDICAL; -0-

CoST; sisa.zs

THIS SENTENCE IS TO BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY WITH ANY SENTENCE CURRENTLY BEING SERVED `

This day the above entitled and numbered cause having been called for trial, the State appeared by her District Attorney WILLIAM JUVRUD, and the Defendant, ROQUE BALDERAS, appeared both in person and by his appointed counsel SCOTT FERGUSON; and the Defendant having elected to waive `a jury herein and submit all matters of both law and fact to the Court, in person, in writing, in open court duly represented by counsel and upon entering his plea of GUILTY, requested that a trial by jury be waived and this‘case`. tried by and before~the~c*'~c'c”"* court; and the said attorney representing the state, having properly filed in the papers hereof prior to the entry of the Defendant's plea of GUILTY herein, his consent and approval in writing and written agreement duly signed, whereby the State agreed that the Defendant be permitted to so waive a jury herein and submit all matters to the Court, and the Court having likewise, also, given its consent and approval thereto in writing signed and filed herein, and here now entered in the minutes, a july was in all things duly waived and this cause tried before the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Balderas, Roque, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balderas-roque-texapp-2015.