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.
Sherry Garrett v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 06-02-00117-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 9, 2003; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Sherry Garrett, also known as Sherry Portley, appeals her conviction for tampering with a governmental record, following a guilty plea. Initially granted ten years of deferred adjudication community supervision, Garrett was later adjudicated guilty after being convicted of theft by a public servant. The State recommended concurrent sentences; however, the trial court imposed two consecutive ten-year terms. Garrett's appeal challenges the trial court's decision to adjudicate her guilt. Under Texas law, defendants typically cannot appeal the adjudication of guilt for violations of community supervision, limiting appellate authority to consider such appeals. Specifically, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12, § 5(b) restricts appeals regarding adjudication decisions. Garrett argues that her conviction is void due to a lack of proper information concerning the range of punishment when she entered her plea. She claims she was misadvised about the felony level of her offense, believing it to be a third-degree felony rather than a second-degree felony, which would carry a higher potential punishment. Her interpretation of the statute is deemed incorrect; the law states that an offense involving the intent to defraud or harm can elevate the charge to a state jail felony. The indictment’s language, which included this intent, meant she was appropriately charged with a felony, reflecting her status as a public servant at the time of the offense. Under Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 31.03(f), the court found no error in the admonishment regarding the punishment range applicable to the defendant's conviction. Even if there had been an error, the conviction would remain valid since the sentence imposed was within the third-degree felony range. Citing Martinez v. State, the court noted that incorrect admonishment regarding punishment does not invalidate a conviction if the actual sentence is within the correct range. The defendant's argument linking the admonishment to an involuntary plea was rejected, as the admonishment was deemed correct. Furthermore, even a meritorious claim of involuntariness does not render a conviction void. The judgment is affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, referencing prior case law (Manuel v. State). The appeal dismissal did not pertain to the specific types of governmental records that might alter the offense classification, as the documents involved did not qualify for the second-degree felony exception.