Natasha Marie Heller v. State

Summary

This is a per curiam, unpublished order from the Texas Court of Appeals for the Seventh District at Amarillo directing the trial court to file a certification of Natasha Marie Heller's right to appeal. The order notes that the clerk's record lacked the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) and sets a deadline for a supplemental clerk's record. The supplied text also contains a separate, unrelated appellate opinion concerning aggravated robbery and post-adjudication issues.

Holdings

1. The court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a trial court's determination to adjudicate guilt, but may review proceedings conducted after adjudication, including sentencing and post-adjudication motions.
2. Reed's efforts to communicate the State's ten-year plea offer were within objectively reasonable professional norms and did not constitute ineffective assistance.
3. The court lacked jurisdiction to review Reed's appointment and withdrawal because they occurred before adjudication; to the extent the issue affected post-adjudication matters, appellant failed to preserve the specific conflict for review.
4. Appellant was not entitled to reformation of the judgment based on the claimed parole-eligibility calculation because the judgment contained no affirmative deadly-weapon finding and the record contained no evidence showing how parole eligibility was calculated; the inadequately supported issue was waived.
5. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance based on Hinshaw's failure to include alleged constitutional errors in the motion for new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Reed rendered ineffective assistance by failing to communicate the State's ten-year plea offer.
2. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review Reed's appointment and alleged conflict of interest when Reed's representation ended before adjudication.
3. Whether appellant's parole eligibility was improperly calculated as though an affirmative deadly-weapon finding existed.
4. Whether Hinshaw rendered ineffective assistance by failing to include alleged constitutional errors in appellant's motion for new trial.

Disposition

affirmed