Reginald Reece v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals considers Reginald Reece’s appeals from three theft convictions and thirteen-year sentences ordered to run consecutively. The court holds that Reece preserved his sentencing complaint, that the parties’ agreement to recommend concurrent sentences was part of the plea bargain, and that the trial court rejected that agreement without giving Reece the required opportunity to withdraw his pleas. The court affirms the trial court’s judgment as modified.

Holdings

1. A defective trial court certification did not defeat Reece's right to appellate review under the circumstances because appellate jurisdiction was invoked by timely and proper notice of appeal, and the certifications were inaccurate when compared with the record.
2. Reece preserved his challenge to the consecutive sentences by objecting when the trial court announced that it was stacking the sentences and by filing timely motions for new trial that specified the alleged error.
3. The State's agreement to recommend concurrent sentencing was part of the plea bargain, even though the recommendation was subject to the trial court's approval.
4. The trial court rejected the plea agreement's concurrent-sentencing term by ordering Reece's sentences to run consecutively.
5. The trial court adequately admonished Reece of his right to withdraw his pleas after rejecting the concurrent-sentencing recommendation, and Reece knowingly chose to proceed with open pleas.
6. The theft offenses were the same or similar offenses arising from the same criminal episode, and the trial court prosecuted cause numbers 20F0292-005 and 20F0970-005 in a single criminal action. Therefore, those two sentences were required to run concurrently under Texas Penal Code Section 3.03(a), although cause number 21F0725-005 could run before them.
7. Reece did not establish that the trial court awarded an incorrect amount of jail-time credit, and the court overruled that point of error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court could review the appeals despite trial court certifications stating that Reece had no right to appeal.
2. Whether Reece preserved his challenge to the consecutive sentences.
3. Whether the parties' agreement that the State would recommend concurrent sentences formed part of the plea bargain.
4. Whether the trial court rejected the plea agreement by imposing consecutive sentences.
5. Whether Reece was adequately given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas after the trial court rejected the concurrent-sentencing recommendation.
6. Whether the three theft offenses arose from the same criminal episode and were prosecuted in a single criminal action such that Texas Penal Code Section 3.03 required concurrent sentences.
7. Whether the trial court awarded Reece the correct amount of jail-time credit.
8. Whether the judgments should be modified to correct the cumulation provisions and the statute of offense.

Disposition

affirmed