Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
James Michael Guzman A/K/A James M. Guzman v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-02-00040-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 30, 2002; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
James Michael Guzman, the appellant, appeals his murder conviction, which resulted in a 45-year prison sentence following a guilty plea without a punishment recommendation from the State. He argues that the Texas Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over his case and that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily due to the absence of a recorded plea hearing. The court affirms its jurisdiction, noting that the Texas Constitution and statutes allow for transfer of appeals among courts. Guzman's claim regarding the voluntariness of his plea is dismissed; although there was no court reporter present during the plea hearing, he and his counsel had waived the need for a record in writing. The court clarifies that the record shows Guzman was aware of his constitutional rights and entered his plea voluntarily. Therefore, both of Guzman's points of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed. The document outlines the jurisdiction and procedural regulations for Texas courts of appeals, specifying that these courts have appellate jurisdiction within their districts and may exercise other original or appellate jurisdiction as defined by law. The Texas Supreme Court can transfer cases between courts of appeals when deemed necessary. Once transferred, the receiving court has jurisdiction regardless of the original trial district and must render decisions at its regular location. A critical section details a defendant's written waiver, stating that James Guzman, with counsel, acknowledges his ability to read and understand the plea admonishments and waives arraignment, the formal reading of the indictment, and various rights, including the right to a jury trial and the right to appeal most issues. Guzman confirms his plea is made knowingly and voluntarily, without coercion, and expresses satisfaction with his legal representation. He also waives the presence of a court reporter for the proceedings and understands the implications of his waivers. The text highlights a conflict between the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and statutory requirements regarding the court reporter’s duty to record proceedings, citing case law that questions whether the duty is contingent on a request. In this instance, Guzman has voluntarily waived the court reporter's record of his plea, affirming his understanding and acceptance of the legal processes involved.