Everett L. Hartwell v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Everett L. Hartwell v. State of Texas

DecidedApril 25, 2001

Docket04-00-00520-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Everett L. Hartwell v. State of Texas (Everett L. Hartwell v. State of Texas) 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

Everett L. Hartwell v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 04-00-00520-CR Everett HARTWELL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 1999-CR-0931 Honorable Sam Katz, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 25, 2001

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED

Everett Hartwell complains that the trial court erred in its pronouncement of the judgment. Hartwell argues that the trial court's judgment does not follow the plea bargain with the State. According to the plea bargain, cause numbers 757943 and 757944 were to be dismissed and any sentence in the instant case (cause number 1999-CR-0931) was to run concurrently with the sentences in cause numbers 716064 and 718578.

It is apparent from the clerk's record and the reporter's record of the plea proceedings that the trial court intended to honor the plea agreement. The proper remedy in this case is for this court to reform the trial court's judgment to reflect that Hartwell's sentence in 1999-CR-0931 is to run concurrent with his sentences in cause numbers 716064 and 718578. Cause numbers 757943 and 757944 were dismissed, making the issue involving them moot. Once the judgment is reformed, the basis for Hartwell's complaint is eliminated, and we can affirm the judgment as reformed.

The trial court's judgment is reformed to reflect that the sentence in 1999-CR-0931 is to run concurrent with the sentences in cause numbers 716064 and 718578. As reformed, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

No. 04-00-00520-CR Everett HARTWELL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 1999-CR-0931 Honorable Sam Katz, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 25, 2001

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED

Everett Hartwell complains that the trial court erred in its pronouncement of the judgment. Hartwell argues that the trial court's judgment does not follow the plea bargain with the State. According to the plea bargain, cause numbers 757943 and 757944 were to be dismissed and any sentence in the instant case (cause number 1999-CR-0931) was to run concurrently with the sentences in cause numbers 716064 and 718578.

It is apparent from the clerk's record and the reporter's record of the plea proceedings that the trial court intended to honor the plea agreement. The proper remedy in this case is for this court to reform the trial court's judgment to reflect that Hartwell's sentence in 1999-CR-0931 is to run concurrent with his sentences in cause numbers 716064 and 718578. Cause numbers 757943 and 757944 were dismissed, making the issue involving them moot. Once the judgment is reformed, the basis for Hartwell's complaint is eliminated, and we can affirm the judgment as reformed.

The trial court's judgment is reformed to reflect that the sentence in 1999-CR-0931 is to run concurrent with the sentences in cause numbers 716064 and 718578. As reformed, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Everett L. Hartwell v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-l-hartwell-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2001.