After the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress, Appellant pled guilty and was convicted by the trial court of driving while intoxicated. The trial court followed the plea agreement and sentenced Appellant to 180 days in jail and a $300 fine, probated for one year. As part of the plea agreement, Appellant signed a standardized form that contained a waiver of his right to appeal. However, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court said that Appellant could appeal and a computer printout of the daily docket contains a notation that Appellant was given permission to appeal. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that Appellant had waived his right of appeal and dismissed the appeal. Kercho v. State, No. 14-01-01176-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [14tht Dist.], delivered January 3, 2002). The Court of Appeals referenced Alzarka v. State, 60 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001). In his petition for discretionary review, Appellant alleges that the standardized form language of the waiver of appeal conflicts with the facts in the case.
In Alzarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), this Court reversed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of a case where the record showed that all of the parties agreed that the appellant could appeal his motion to suppress. As in this case, the appellant in Alzarka had signed a standardized form that contained a waiver of appeal. When the Court of Appeals decided this case, it did not have the benefit of this Court's opinion in Alzarka. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Alzarka.
Date delivered: January 29, 2002
Do not publish