NUMBER 13-04-158-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
JORGE LUIS MEDRANO A/K/A
JORGE LUIS FRAGA MEDRANO, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Castillo, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
Appellant, Jorge Medrano, was arrested and indicted for possession of 1.5 grams of cocaine. In exchange for appellant’s plea of guilty, the State agreed not to oppose community supervision if appellant had no prior felony convictions. The trial court accepted appellant’s plea of guilty but indicated at the sentencing hearing that it would not grant appellant’s request for community supervision. Appellant then asked to have his plea withdrawn, but the trial court refused his request and, instead, adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant now argues that the trial court committed reversible error by not allowing him to withdraw his plea of guilty.
Appellant contends that the State agreed to recommend community supervision but failed to do so at the sentencing hearing. Appellant further contends that because the trial court indicated that it would not grant his request for community supervision, he was entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty. We disagree with appellant on both points. If a trial court rejects any bargaining agreement between the State and the defendant, the defendant is permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere. In this case, the trial court did not reject the agreement between appellant and the State. Contrary to appellant’s representation of the record, the State did not agree to recommend community supervision; it agreed not to oppose appellant’s request for community supervision if appellant had no prior felony convictions. The record indicates that the State remained silent throughout the sentencing hearing and thereby honored its agreement with appellant. By denying appellant’s request for community supervision, the trial court did not reject the bargaining agreement between appellant and the State because the State never agreed to recommend community supervision. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request to withdraw his plea of guilty. Accordingly, appellant’s sole issue on appeal is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
_______________________
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,
Justice
Concurring Memorandum
Opinion by Justice Errlinda Castillo.
Do not publish.
Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the19th day of May, 2005.