Blanco v. State

471 Citing cases

  1. Monreal v. State

    99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)   Cited 526 times
    In Monreal, we explained that Blanco does not require a plea agreement for a waiver to be binding; rather the importance of the plea agreement in Blanco was that it determined that Appellant's waiver was knowing and intelligent by specifying the punishment.

    We address, first, Monreal's contention that the purpose of the rule is to prevent defendants from appealing despite receiving the benefit of a bargain and that therefore the rule does not apply to non-negotiated waivers of appeal. Monreal argues that this purpose is demonstrated by our reasoning in Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), and embraced by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b), which, he argues, is persuasive in determining whether negotiated and non-negotiated waivers should be treated alike. A. Blanco

  2. Arnone v. State

    No. 05-03-01165-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 28, 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that because the appellant could not have known what his sentence would be at the time he entered his plea, Monreal and Blanco are not controlling

    Appellant did not waive any rights at that time. The State, citing Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), contends appellant waived his right to appeal his conviction in exchange for the prosecutor's agreed recommendation on punishment and must be held to his bargain. In Blanco, after the jury found the appellant guilty, he entered into an agreement not to appeal his conviction in exchange for the prosecutor's recommendation for a sixteen-year sentence.

  3. Williams v. State

    37 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming denial of motion to suppress when informant not searched before or kept in view during buy

    As a preliminary matter, the State asserts appellant waived his right to appeal when the trial court accepted the plea agreement. The State relies on Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). In Blanco, after the jury convicted the defendant, the defendant and State entered into an agreement under which the defendant promised not to appeal his conviction in exchange for the prosecution's promise to recommend to the trial court that it assess a sixteen-year sentence.

  4. Ex Parte Delaney

    207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 162 times
    Holding invalid defendant's pre-sentencing waiver of right to appeal

    Townsend, 538 S.W.2d at 420; Thomas, 545 S.W.2d at 469-70. The blanket rule invalidating all presentencing waivers of appeal was changed in Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), when we upheld a waiver of appeal that was executed after conviction but before sentencing, in exchange for a recommended sentence. We held that there was no compelling reason why the appellant should not be held to his bargain.

  5. Peter v. State

    NO. 01-07-00516-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 17, 2011)

    Appellant filed a motion for new trial and a pro se notice of appeal. In its motion to dismiss, the State asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because appellant waived his right to appeal when the trial court accepted his plea agreement as to punishment, citing Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A valid waiver of the right to appeal will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court.

  6. Stowe v. State

    124 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that court of appeals had authority to notify defendant of intent to dismiss appeal to allow reasonable opportunity to correct certification error

    Thus, an appeal from the original guilty plea would have been restricted by the rule that the defendant may appeal only those matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial court's permission to appeal. Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2). Here, Appellant waived his right to appeal as part of the plea bargain. It is well established that a defendant in a noncapital case may waive any right secured him by law, including his right to appeal. Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Tex. Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(a) (Vernon Supp. 2003). A knowing and intelligent waiver is binding on the defendant and prevents him from appealing a waived issue without the consent of the court.

  7. Talbott v. State

    93 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that failure to admonish defendant that her parental rights could be terminated as result of her guilty plea did not render plea involuntary

    In Blanco, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the concerns expressed in Thomas, Dickey, and Townsend were "less compelling in cases . . . where the trial court follows the prosecution's sentencing recommendation." Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). The Blanco court also noted one additional difference between the facts in Blanco and in Thomas: in Thomas, unlike Blanco, "the defendant did not bargain for a sentencing recommendation . . . in exchange for his waiver of the right to appeal."

  8. Alzarka v. State

    60 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 9 times

    See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-220 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). See also Bushnell, 975 S.W.2d at 644; Turner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 789, 790 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, no pet.); Doyle v. State, 888 S.W.2d 514, 518 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, pet. ref'd).

  9. Schultz v. Thaler

    428 F. App'x 360 (5th Cir. 2011)

    The totality of the circumstances in the record establish that the Schultz was aware of the consequences of entering the agreement and that he received a benefit by entering the agreement. See Joseph v. Butler, 838 F.2d 786, 789-91 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Blanco v. Texas, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Although the parties mistakenly believed at the time of the sentencing agreement that Schultz could be prosecuted for 2003 assault of his wife which was later determined to be time barred, the State did not intentionally mislead Schultz or breach the agreement not to prosecute Schultz.

  10. Faulkner v. State

    402 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    The trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with the agreement on punishment; therefore, the State gave consideration for the waiver of appeal, and appellant received a benefit. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Moreno v. State, 327 S.W.3d 267, 268–69 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2010, no pet.); Bushnell v. State, 975 S.W.2d 641, 641–44 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). We conclude that appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal and received consideration from the State.See Blanco, 18 S.W.3d at 219–20 (affirming dismissal of appeal based upon appellant's waiver of the right to appeal after conviction in exchange for State's agreement to recommend that the trial court assess punishment at sixteen years' confinement); Moreno, 327 S.W.3d at 268–69 (enforcing post-sentencing waiver of appeal made in open court); Bushnell, 975 S.W.2d at 641–44 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction based upon waiver of the right to appeal made in exchange for State's agreement as to punishment, as expressed in colloquy in open court).