Lira v. Texas (original by judge newell)
Annotate this CaseThe State charged Appellants with second-degree felony assault on a public servant. The State alleged in Eluid Lira’s indictment that he had previously been convicted twice for felony possession of a controlled substance and twice for felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The State alleged in Scott Huddleston’s indictment that he had previously been convicted for murder. Both Appellants were represented by the State Counsel for Offenders. Both Appellants reached plea agreements with the State and their cases were set for back-to-back pleas via a “zoom/video-conference plea docket.” Prior to the hearing, counsel for Appellants filed identical motions objecting to the trial court’s setting the cases for plea hearings via a Zoom videoconference. In the motions, Appellants argued that pleading by videoconference would violate their constitutional right to counsel, right to public trial, and statutory rights under Articles 27.18 and 27.19 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the State argued that Emergency Orders issued by the Supreme Court of Texas controlled over the Code of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, the Appellants argued that their statutory right to enter a guilty plea in person in open court was a substantive right. Because of this, it was not subject to the Texas Supreme Court’s emergency orders regarding the modification or suspension of deadlines and procedures. The State argued that, if preserved, Appellants’ arguments failed because the Texas Supreme Court had the authority to modify or suspend “the act of criminal defendants appearing live in live courtrooms[.]” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals surmised the question in Appellants' cases boiled down to the "simple question of whether the Supreme Court’s Emergency Order granted a trial court authority to preside over videoconferenced plea hearings when the Appellants had not consented." To this, the Court concluded: no, a trial court has no authority to hold a videoconferenced plea hearing when the defendant has not consented. The court of appeals was affirmed and the matters remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.