Gary Franklin v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 16, 2005
Docket03-05-00184-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Gary Franklin v. State (Gary Franklin v. State) 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
Gary Franklin v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN





NO. 03-05-00184-CR




Gary Eugene Franklin, Appellant


v.


The State of Texas, Appellee





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 933724, HONORABLE MICHAEL LYNCH, JUDGE PRESIDING




O P I N I O N

Gary Franklin was placed on deferred adjudication supervision after he pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a child. Franklin has now been adjudicated guilty and he seeks to appeal. The trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Franklin has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

A defendant who plea bargains for deferred adjudication has a right to appeal, following a subsequent adjudication, issues unrelated to the conviction but no right to appeal issues related to the conviction. Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 711, 884-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The form promulgated by the court of criminal appeals to certify the defendant’s right of appeal does not provide for this conditional right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. appendix (found at Tex. R. App. P. 25.2, notes and comments (West 2003)); and see Kahookele v. State, No. 03-04-00493-CR (Tex. App.—Austin May 12, 2005, no pet. h.); Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.).

The trial court’s certification that Franklin has no right of appeal is incorrect and therefore defective. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (inaccurate certification is defective). We abate the appeal for ten days and instruct the trial court to prepare and send to this Court an amended certification that accurately reflects Franklin’s conditional right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 37.1; see Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614. The certification should state that there was a plea bargain for deferred adjudication, but following an adjudication of guilt the defendant has the right of appeal as to issues unrelated to the conviction. See Kahookele, slip op. at 5-6.

The appeal is abated.

                                                __________________________________________

                                                W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Filed: May 16, 2005

Publish

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

Related

Dears v. State
154 S.W.3d 610 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Kirtley v. State
56 S.W.3d 48 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Carroll v. State
119 S.W.3d 838 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Woods v. State
68 S.W.3d 667 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Hanford v. City of Arnold
49 S.W.3d 707 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gary Franklin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-franklin-v-state-texapp-2005.