Background
Cameron Alexander Wheaton was indicted for driving while intoxicated with a child passenger, a state jail felony, with an enhancement allegation based on a prior conviction for sexual assault of a child. He pleaded guilty to the offense and true to the enhancement. The parties agreed that Wheaton would receive five years in prison if he appeared on the reset sentencing date and stayed out of trouble; otherwise, he would face the full punishment range of up to ten years.
Sentencing was set for August 18, 2025. The trial court revoked Wheaton’s bond that day, but the appellate record contained no reporter’s record or docket entry explaining what occurred or whether Wheaton appeared. At an October 20 sentencing hearing, Wheaton sought to withdraw his plea based on medical documentation that he said supported a seizure-related defense. The trial court denied that request, found the plea voluntary, and sentenced him to ten years in prison.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed without deciding whether the plea agreement required a five-year sentence. Wheaton failed to preserve his specific-performance claim because he did not tell the trial court that the agreement had been breached, request enforcement of the five-year term, or raise the issue in a motion for new trial. He also did not present evidence that he appeared for the August 18 sentencing setting.
The court likewise held that Wheaton did not preserve his appellate claim that he had an absolute right to withdraw his plea because the trial court failed to honor the agreement. At sentencing, he requested withdrawal based on purportedly new medical evidence, not noncompliance with the plea bargain. The court added that, even if his argument were construed as challenging the denial on that broader basis, withdrawal was discretionary because the case had already been taken under advisement, and Wheaton showed no abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A claim that a plea agreement was breached must be raised when the trial court can remedy the alleged breach or in a motion for new trial.
- An appellate argument must match the specific ground presented to the trial court; a request based on new evidence does not preserve a plea-bargain noncompliance claim.
- After a trial court has taken a guilty plea under advisement, withdrawal is no longer available as a matter of right and rests within the court’s discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that plea-agreement remedies depend on timely, specific preservation. A defendant seeking enforcement or withdrawal must clearly identify the alleged breach in the trial court and establish any factual predicate—such as compliance with an appearance condition—rather than raising a different ground and reframing the issue on appeal.