Background
In September 2025, Manuel De La Cruz Leyva filed a motion to dismiss his criminal trespass prosecution, alleging the prosecution violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. The trial court denied the motion. Leyva subsequently entered into a plea agreement in absentia, authorizing his attorney to sign documents and enter a plea of no contest on his behalf.
The plea agreement contained standard boilerplate provisions. Critically, Paragraph X (Waiver of Rights—which would waive the right to appeal pre-trial motions) bore “N/A” instead of Leyva’s initials, as did Paragraph XI (Waiver of Counsel). By contrast, Paragraph II, which acknowledged Leyva’s right to appeal “matters raised by written motion filed before trial,” was properly initialed. The trial court accepted the plea bargain, imposed the agreed sentence, and signed a certification stating that Leyva “has NO right of appeal” and “has waived the right of appeal.” Leyva appealed, and the appellate court ultimately ordered the trial court to clarify whether Leyva had knowingly and intelligently waived his appellate rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s certification of appeal waiver was defective and unsupported by the record. The court determined that the “N/A” markings in Paragraphs X and XI indicated those provisions were not applicable to Leyva’s agreement, meaning he did not waive the right to appeal pre-trial motions. The court applied contract-interpretation principles, finding the parties’ intent reflected in the written agreement: Paragraph II was initialed (preserving the right to appeal pre-trial motions), while Paragraph X was marked “N/A” (refusing to waive those rights).
The court emphasized that there was no evidence in the record that Leyva knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. The State received the signed plea agreement with the “N/A” markings but did not object to or correct them. At the plea hearing, the court made no mention of Leyva waiving his appeal rights. Under Texas law, a defendant in a plea agreement retains the right to appeal pre-trial motions unless that right is explicitly and clearly waived with consideration given by the State. The court found neither explicit waiver nor consideration here.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants who plead guilty under plea agreements retain the right to appeal pre-trial motions under Texas law unless that right is clearly and knowingly waived.
- A valid waiver of appeal rights requires the defendant to act voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and typically requires consideration from the State.
- The use of “N/A” in plea agreement provisions indicates those provisions do not apply; courts will interpret “N/A” consistent with contract principles and the parties’ apparent intent.
- A State’s failure to object to or correct ambiguous markings in a signed plea agreement may operate against the State in interpreting the agreement’s terms.
- Boilerplate waiver language in plea agreements will not be presumed to override explicit acknowledgments of retained rights elsewhere in the agreement.
Why It Matters
This decision protects defendants’ appellate rights, particularly regarding pre-trial motions that raise constitutional claims such as equal protection and discrimination. It clarifies that waivers of fundamental rights like the right to appeal must be unambiguous and that trial courts cannot rely on general boilerplate language when the specific record—including “N/A” markings and initialed preservations of rights—points in the opposite direction.
For defense practitioners, the ruling underscores the importance of careful attention to every provision of a plea agreement and the strategic use of “N/A” markings to preserve appellate rights on critical issues. For prosecutors and courts, it reinforces that plea agreements must clearly express any waiver of appellate rights and that ambiguities will be resolved against the State, given its superior drafting authority and obligation to review agreements before submission.