By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Juvenile confession claim waived by
unnegotiated guilty plea in criminal case (99-3-28)
On June 10, 1999, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that a
claim by a criminal defendant that his juvenile confession was illegally
obtained could not be raised on appeal because he entered a non-plea bargained
plea of guilty before the jury in the trial court. The juvenile confession claim
was a non-jurisdictional defect that is waived by the entry of an unnegotiated
plea of guilty.
99-3-28. Echeverry v. State, UNPUBLISHED, No. 01-98-00481-CR, 1999 WL 442179,
1999 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 6/10/99)[Texas Juvenile Law
(4th Edition 1996)].
Facts: Appellant, Ruben Dario Echeverry, Jr., was indicted for aggravated sexual
assault. After the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress his written
in-custody statement, appellant pled guilty without an agreed recommendation and
asked the jury to assess his punishment. The jury heard the evidence on
appellant's plea of guilty, and sentenced him to thirty years.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: In point of error one, appellant asserts the trial court erred in
not suppressing his written in-custody statement. Appellant filed a pretrial
motion to suppress his statement, which was denied. Appellant again objected to
the admission of his in-custody statement during the introduction of the
evidence to the jury to support his plea.
In the absence of a plea bargain agreement, a voluntary guilty plea waives all
nonjurisdictional defects occurring before the entry of the plea. Jack v. State,
871 S.W.2d 741, 743-44 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Courtney v. State, 904 S.W.2d 907,
909 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd).
The trial court's error, if any, in denying the appellant's pretrial suppression
motion that occurred before the entry of appellant's guilty plea is a
nonjurisdictional defect that was waived by the entry of a non-negotiated guilty
plea. See Jack, 871 S.W.2d at 742-43; Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 4-5
(Tex.Crim.App.1995).
Here, appellant pled guilty without an agreed recommendation on punishment.
Appellant signed and initialed the plea admonishments, and the trial court again
admonished appellant before he entered his plea. Therefore, appellant has waived
his right to complain on appeal about any error the trial court made regarding
the suppression of the evidence prior to the entry of his plea.
Because appellant reasserted his objection after the entry of his plea, his
non-negotiated plea did not waive his right to complain about the admission of
his in-custody statement. Appellant contends that his argument at trial
necessarily included his complaint on appeal. We disagree. At appellant's
hearing on his motion to suppress, he argued that his in-custody statement
should have been suppressed because he was illegally detained in violation of
section 52.025 of the Family Code. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 52.025 (Vernon 1996
& Supp.1999). Specifically, appellant asserted that he had been detained at
the juvenile processing office for longer than six hours, which is prohibited by
section 52.025. Appellant reasserted this objection when his statement was
introduced into evidence. However, on appeal appellant contends that his
in-custody statement should have been suppressed because the detective did not
take him to an office or official designated by the juvenile court before
obtaining his statement, as required by section 52.02 of the Family Code.
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 52.02(a)(2) (Vernon Supp.1999). We hold that appellant's
argument at trial does not comport with his complaint on appeal, and, thus, he
has not preserved error. Butler v. State, 872 S.W.2d 227, 236
(Tex.Crim.App.1994).
We overrule appellant's first point of error.