Dallas Murphy McClarty, Jr. v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-98-00360-CR NO. 03-98-00361-CR NO. 03-98-00362-CR NO. 03-98-00363-CR Dallas Murphy McClarty, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 48,018, 48,019, 48,020 & 48,021, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING After appellant entered pleas of guilty to four offenses of delivering a controlled substance, cocaine, in the amount of four grams but less than two hundred grams, (1) the trial court assessed punishments at confinement for ten years and fifteen years in the two earlier numbered causes, and at thirty years in each of the latter numbered causes. Appellant asserts that error occurred in the trial court because: (1) appellant did not receive effective assistance of counsel, and (2) the evidence showed that appellant was the victim of entrapment. We will overrule appellant's points of error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. In his first point of error, appellant contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in the trial court because: (1) he was not afforded an investigation of the allegations against him; (2) there was no discovery of audio and video tapes; and (3) there was no challenge to evidence seized with a defective search warrant. Where there is no plea bargain and a plea of guilty is voluntarily made, all non-jurisdictional defects including claimed deprivations of due process are waived under what is commonly referred to as the Helms Rule. See Shallhorn v. State, 732 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Since a claim of ineffective counsel is not a jurisdictional issue, we do not have jurisdiction to address this point of error. See Lyon v. State, 827 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Appellant's first point of error is overruled. In his second point of error, appellant contends that the convictions should be set aside because of evidence of entrapment favorable to appellant. Appellant does not contend that the defense of entrapment is a jurisdictional error nor can we envision any rationale that would support such a position. Accordingly, our disposition of appellant's first point of error is dispositive of this contention. Appellant's second point of error is overruled. The judgments are affirmed. Tom G. Davis, Justice Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Jones and Davis* Affirmed Filed: April 1, 1999 Do Not Publish * Before Tom G. Davis, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998). 1. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(d) (West Supp. 1999). WP="BR2"> v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 48,018, 48,019, 48,020 & 48,021, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING After appellant entered pleas of guilty to four offenses of delivering a controlled substance, cocaine, in the amount of four grams but less than two hundred grams, (1) the trial court assessed punishments at confinement for ten years and fifteen years in the two earlier numbered causes, and at thirty years in each of the latter numbered causes. Appellant asserts that error occurred in the trial court because: (1) appellant did not receive effective assistance of counsel, and (2) the evidence showed that appellant was the victim of entrapment. We will overrule appellant's points of error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. In his first point of error, appellant contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in the trial court because: (1) he was not afforded an investigation of the allegations against him; (2) there was no discovery of audio and video tapes; and (3) there was no challenge to evidence seized with a defective search warrant. Where there is no plea bargain and a plea of guilty is voluntarily made, all non-jurisdictional defects including claimed deprivations of due process are waived under what is commonly referred to as the Helms Rule. See Shallhorn v. State, 732 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Since a claim of ineffective counsel is not a jurisdictional issue, we do not have jurisdiction to address this point of error. See Lyon v. State, 827 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Appellant's first point of error is overruled. In his second point of error, appellant contends that the convictions should be set aside because of evidence of entrapment favorable to appellant. Appellant does not contend that the defense of entrapment is a jurisdictional error nor can we envision any rationale that would support such a position. Accordingly, our disposition of appellant's first point of error is dispositive of this contention. Appellant's second point of error is overruled. The judgments are affirmed. Tom G. Davis, Justice Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Jones and Davis* Affirmed Filed: April