Cathy Ortner v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 21, 1999
• Docket: 04-98-00470-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Nos. 04-98-00470-CR & 04-98-00471-CR

Cathy ORTNER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 97-CR-3551 & 97-CR-3552 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Per Curiam

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 21, 1999

AFFIRMED

Cathy Ortner pled no contest to intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render aid. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced her to concurrent seven- and five-year terms of confinement. On appeal, Ortner contends the trial court erred by denying her pro-se motion for a new trial. More specifically, she argues her plea was involuntary because her lawyer guaranteed she would receive community supervision. Because the issues in this appeal involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

Ortner's argument fails for several reasons. First, because Ortner's trial counsel filed a motion for new trial on her behalf, the trial court was not required to consider Ortner's pro se motion. See Ashcraft v. State, 900 S.W.2d 817, 831 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1995, pet. ref'd & pet. dism'd). Additionally, Ortner was properly admonished, and the record does not otherwise support her claim that counsel promised her community supervision. See Thomas v. State, 932 S.W.2d 128, 129 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Crawford v. State, 890 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1994, no pet.). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Ortner's pro se motion for new trial. We overrule Ortner's point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

DO NOT PUBLISH