Adam McGuire v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 403rd District Court of Travis County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00436-CR Adam McGuire, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-05-904028, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Adam McGuire pleaded guilty to murder, a lesser included offense of the capital murder alleged in the indictment. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.02 (West 2003). The court adjudged him guilty and, after hearing evidence, sentenced him to forty-five years’ imprisonment. McGuire’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McGuire filed a pretrial motion to suppress his statement to the police that was heard and overruled by the trial court. Counsel states in his brief, in apparent reference to the suppression motion, that McGuire’s unbargained guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional defects or errors that occurred before the plea was entered. Counsel cites Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), an opinion applying what was referred to as the Helms rule. See Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). The Helms rule was abandoned in Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A valid plea of guilty waives or forfeits the right to appeal a claim of error only when the judgment of guilt was rendered independent of, and is not supported by, the error. Id. A judgment is not independent of a ruling that admitted evidence in error. Id. at 667 n.32. The appeal is abated. McGuire’s appointed counsel, Mr. Walter C. Prentice, shall file a supplemental brief addressing the trial court’s order overruling the motion to suppress no later than forty-five days from the date of this opinion. We express no opinion on the merits of the issue, and counsel may conclude that there is no meritorious basis for contesting the trial court’s ruling. The purpose of the abatement is to give counsel the opportunity to reexamine the record without regard to the defunct Helms rule. __________________________________________ Bea Ann Smith, Justice Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Waldrop Filed: July 25, 2006 Do Not Publish 2

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.