Carol Ann Davis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No 14 of Harris County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00180-CR
______________________________
CAROL ANN DAVIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 12
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1126550
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carol Ann Davis appeals from her conviction, on her guilty plea, of driving while intoxicated, a class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced her to ten days in the Harris County jail and suspended her driver's license for one year. Davis on appeal argues the trial court committed error in that (1) her plea of guilty was given when she was incompetent, (2) her plea was otherwise involuntary, and (3) her motion for new trial was heard when she had no counsel.

Was Davis Competent When She Pled Guilty?

Davis first argues the trial court committed fundamental error by accepting her guilty plea without first determining she was competent to stand trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(b) (Vernon 1989). The clerk's record, however, contains Davis' written plea of guilty, which includes Davis' statements that she made her plea knowingly and voluntarily and that, as a part of her plea agreement, she waived her right to appeal. The trial court then initialed the second page of the plea form, which finds Davis competent and her plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The record shows the trial court found Davis competent. Davis' contention that the court made no such determination is thus without merit. We overrule her first point of error.

Was Davis' Plea Voluntary?

Davis next contends her plea was not voluntary and the trial court therefore erred by overruling her motion for new trial. Granting or denying a motion for new trial is discretionary with the trial court. We do not substitute our judgment for the trial court's, but rather decide whether its decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

In Davis' affidavit attached to her motion for new trial, she affirmed that she was under severe stress at the time she entered her plea and that she had a bipolar condition for which she had not received her medication. In a supplemental motion filed three days before the trial court ruled, Davis repeated her affirmation that she had a bipolar disorder. She also included a letter from her doctor, in which he (1) stated Davis had informed him she experienced errors in judgment during her court hearing, (2) confirmed she had bipolar disorder, and (3) opined that, because of the disorder, she was likely to make errors in judgment.

The trial court, however, also had before it trial counsel's affirmation that he believed Davis was competent and that he had fully explained to her the consequences of her plea. In addition, at the initial plea proceeding, the trial court had the opportunity to observe Davis' demeanor and responses, concluding that she was competent and able to voluntarily enter a guilty plea.

No evidence was presented at the hearing. Defense counsel appeared, but Davis did not. Thus, the court was left with the letter, affidavit, and the record from which to reach its decision. Conflicting evidence exists. We therefore cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in deciding Davis' plea was voluntary. We overrule this point of error.

 

Did Davis Have Counsel?

Davis also contends the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial because she did not have counsel. This is inaccurate. The record shows that Davis filed a pro se motion for new trial on August 1, 2002, and that on August 5 the court set a hearing date of August 9. On August 9, Davis' counsel appeared, but Davis did not. Counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which the court did not consider at that time. Instead, the court reset the hearing for August 12. At that time, counsel again appeared, but Davis again did not. The trial court denied the motion for new trial on August 14 and at that time granted counsel's request to withdraw.

This Court has held that the time period for filing a motion for new trial is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding in which criminal defendants are entitled to assistance of counsel. Blumenstetter v. State, No. 06-02-00127-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 8387, at *10 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Sept. 26, 2003, order); Prudhomme v. State, 28 S.W.3d 114, 119 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, order). When the record does not reflect trial counsel withdrew or was replaced by new counsel after sentencing, there is a rebuttable presumption trial counsel continued to effectively represent the defendant during the time period for filing a motion for new trial. Id.; see Smith v. State, 17 S.W.3d 660, 662-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

The record shows not only that Davis had counsel, but that counsel appeared for hearings and that Davis did not request any change in representation. This record does not show that Davis was unrepresented at any critical juncture in the proceeding. We overrule this point of error.

We affirm the judgment.

 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

 

Date Submitted: September 26, 2003

Date Decided: October 8, 2003

 

Do Not Publish