Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Steven Charles Powell was convicted of failing to comply with sex-offender-registration requirements pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement. He received a five-year prison sentence, suspended in favor of five years of community supervision.
After the State moved to revoke his community supervision, Powell pleaded true to the revocation allegations. The trial court revoked his community supervision, imposed five years of confinement, and certified that the proceeding was a plea-bargain case in which Powell had no right to appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals concluded that the certification appeared defective. The record contained no written plea-bargain agreement governing the revocation proceeding, no waiver of Powell’s right to appeal the revocation, and no indication in the judgment that the revocation resulted from a plea bargain.
The court explained that the plea-bargain restrictions in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) concern guilty pleas and do not apply merely because a defendant pleaded true to allegations in a motion to revoke. It therefore abated the appeal and remanded for the trial court to prepare an amended certification consistent with the record, secure Powell’s signature through reasonable means, and submit a supplemental clerk’s record by September 14, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- An original conviction obtained pursuant to a plea bargain does not automatically eliminate the right to appeal a later revocation proceeding.
- A plea of true to revocation allegations is not, by itself, the type of plea bargain governed by Rule 25.2(a)(2).
- When a right-to-appeal certification conflicts with the record, the appellate court must obtain a corrected certification before proceeding.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that appellate jurisdiction following revocation depends on the actual record and the circumstances of the revocation proceeding, not simply on whether the original conviction involved a plea bargain. Trial courts must accurately certify a defendant’s appellate rights, and appellate courts must address defective certifications rather than relying on them uncritically.