This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant entered a no-contest plea to a charge of criminal damage to property. The Defendant later claimed that they did not adequately understand the plea and disposition agreement and sought to withdraw the plea.
Procedural History
- District Court, Hidalgo County: The Defendant entered a no-contest plea to criminal damage to property, and the court entered a judgment and sentence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the plea was not entered knowingly or voluntarily and sought to withdraw the plea. Claimed that the plea agreement was not adequately understood.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant adequately preserved the claim of an unknowing or involuntary plea by filing a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial court.
- Whether the Defendant demonstrated a manifest injustice to justify withdrawing the plea.
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the district court's judgment and sentence were affirmed.
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Robles and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that a claim of an unknowing or involuntary plea must be preserved by filing a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial court and demonstrating a manifest injustice. The Defendant failed to preserve this issue, as neither the record nor the docketing statement indicated that such a motion was filed. Additionally, the Defendant did not provide evidence from the record to support the claim of manifest injustice. The Court noted that the Defendant's claims appeared to rely on matters outside the record, which are not reviewable on appeal. Such claims, if they have merit, must be addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding.