Jack William Walker v. the State of Texas
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
June 5, 2025
Case Summary
Opinion filed June 5, 2025 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-24-00072-CR __________ JACK WILLIAM WALKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 29997-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jack William Walker, entered an “open plea” of guilty to the state jail felony offense of evading arrest or detention. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(1) (West Supp 2024). The trial court admonished Appellant, accepted his plea, and, after a punishment hearing, sentenced him to confinement for twenty- two months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). On appeal, Appellant contends in a single issue that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural History The evading offense for which Appellant was indicted was enhanced by a prior evading conviction and two prior convictions for possession of methamphetamine. Rather than proceeding to trial before a jury, and after the State abandoned the enhancement allegations (which reduced the charged offense to a state jail felony), Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and elected to enter an “open plea” of guilty. At Appellant’s plea hearing, the trial court thoroughly admonished Appellant and reviewed with Appellant the documents that Appellant and his trial counsel had signed before the plea hearing commenced, namely: (1) the written plea admonishments—which included, among other things, statements that Appellant was “totally satisfied with the representation given to [him] by [his] attorney” and that his “attorney provided [him] fully effective and competent representation”— and (2) Appellant’s judicial confession. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2024). In response to the trial court’s admonitions, Appellant affirmatively stated, and his trial counsel confirmed, that Appellant was competent, that his plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and free of coercion, and that he understood the consequences of entering an open plea. The trial court thereafter accepted Appellant’s plea, found Appellant guilty of the charged offense, ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI), and, after a subsequent punishment hearing, sentenced Appellant to twenty-two months confinement in TDCJ. 2 On appeal, Appellant now contends that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because his trial counsel failed to advise him of the options available to him and in turn coerced him into pleading guilty. According to Appellant, his counsel’s failures and conduct are tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel. II. Standard of Review A. Voluntariness of Guilty Plea A guilty plea must be knowingly and voluntarily made to be constitutionally valid. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 618 (1998). When the record shows, as it does here, that the trial court properly admonished the defendant before accepting the defendant’s plea, this constitutes a prima facie showing that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Gibauitch, 688 S.W.2d 868, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); see CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13. The burden then shifts to the defendant to establish that he entered his plea without an understanding of the consequences. Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197 (citing Gibauitch, 688 S.W.2d at 871). This is a heavy burden, especially when the defendant acknowledges during his plea hearing, as Appellant did in this instance, that his plea is made knowingly and voluntarily and that he understands the consequences of pleading guilty. Coronado v. State, 25 S.W.3d 806, 809 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). On the other hand, a guilty plea that is made as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel is not knowingly or voluntarily made and is, therefore, invalid, because it does not constitute an informed choice. Ex parte Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Ex parte Burns, 601 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, a defendant’s decision to plead guilty, if based upon the erroneous advice of counsel, is not made knowingly and 3 voluntarily. See Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 689 (citing Ex parte Battle, 817 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel When a defendant pleads guilty as a resul
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
Opinion filed June 5, 2025
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-24-00072-CR
__________
JACK WILLIAM WALKER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 42nd District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 29997-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jack William Walker, entered an “open plea” of guilty to the state
jail felony offense of evading arrest or detention. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(1) (West Supp 2024). The trial court admonished Appellant, accepted his plea, and, after a punishment hearing, sentenced him to confinement for twenty- two months in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). On appeal, Appellant contends in a single issue that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural History The evading offense for which Appellant was indicted was enhanced by a prior evading conviction and two prior convictions for possession of methamphetamine. Rather than proceeding to trial before a jury, and after the State abandoned the enhancement allegations (which reduced the charged offense to a state jail felony), Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and elected to enter an “open plea” of guilty. At Appellant’s plea hearing, the trial court thoroughly admonished Appellant and reviewed with Appellant the documents that Appellant and his trial counsel had signed before the plea hearing commenced, namely: (1) the written plea admonishments—which included, among other things, statements that Appellant was “totally satisfied with the representation given to [him] by [his] attorney” and that his “attorney provided [him] fully effective and competent representation”— and (2) Appellant’s judicial confession. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2024). In response to the trial court’s admonitions, Appellant affirmatively stated, and his trial counsel confirmed, that Appellant was competent, that his plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and free of coercion, and that he understood the consequences of entering an open plea. The trial court thereafter accepted Appellant’s plea, found Appellant guilty of the charged offense, ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI), and, after a subsequent punishment hearing, sentenced Appellant to twenty-two months confinement in TDCJ.
2
On appeal, Appellant now contends that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because his trial counsel failed to advise him of the options available to him and in turn coerced him into pleading guilty. According to Appellant, his counsel’s failures and conduct are tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel. II. Standard of Review A. Voluntariness of Guilty Plea A guilty plea must be knowingly and voluntarily made to be constitutionally valid. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 618 (1998). When the record shows, as it does here, that the trial court properly admonished the defendant before accepting the defendant’s plea, this constitutes a prima facie showing that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte Gibauitch, 688 S.W.2d 868, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); see CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13. The burden then shifts to the defendant to establish that he entered his plea without an understanding of the consequences. Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197 (citing Gibauitch, 688 S.W.2d at 871). This is a heavy burden, especially when the defendant acknowledges during his plea hearing, as Appellant did in this instance, that his plea is made knowingly and voluntarily and that he understands the consequences of pleading guilty. Coronado v. State, 25 S.W.3d 806, 809 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). On the other hand, a guilty plea that is made as the result of ineffective assistance of counsel is not knowingly or voluntarily made and is, therefore, invalid, because it does not constitute an informed choice. Ex parte Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Ex parte Burns, 601 S.W.2d 370, 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, a defendant’s decision to plead guilty, if based upon the erroneous advice of counsel, is not made knowingly and
3
voluntarily. See Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 689 (citing Ex parte Battle, 817 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel When a defendant pleads guilty as a resul
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 5, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools