record of the plea hearing in Texas

1999Cf. Hurwitz v. State, 700 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1102 , 106 S.Ct. 884 , 88 L.Ed.2d 919 (1986); Grays, 888 S.W.2d at 878 .

1994Cf. Hurwitz v. State, 700 S.W.2d 919, 921 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1102 , 106 S.Ct. 884 , 88 L.Ed.2d 919 (1986).

2024See Thomas, 516 S.W.3d at 502 .

2021See Harper v. State, 567 S.W.3d 450 , 454–55 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) (discussing “charge bargains,” “sentence bargains,” and “open pleas.”); see also Bowie v. State, 135 S.W.3d 55 , 69 n.11 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Harper v. State, 567 S.W.3d 450 , 454–55 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) (discussing “charge bargains,” “sentence bargains,” and “open pleas.”); see also Bowie v. State, 135 S.W.3d 55 , 69 n.11 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Ex parte Ali, 368 S.W.3d 827 , 830–31 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet. ref’d) (discussing deference to trial court’s findings, particularly where they turn on a witness’s credibility and demeanor).

2009See 257 S.W.3d 825, 828 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, pet. ref'd). 3 Assuming, without deciding, the evidence before the trial court warranted an inquiry into appellant’s competency, we conclude the trial court’s inquiry supports the conclusion that appellant had the present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding and had a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him. 4 Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first issue.

2009See 257 S.W.3d 825, 828 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, pet. ref'd). [3] Assuming, without deciding, the evidence before the trial court warranted an inquiry into appellant's competency, we conclude the trial court's inquiry supports the conclusion that appellant had the present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding and had a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him. [4] Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first issue.

2006See Ex parte Gibauitch, 688 S.W.2d 868, 871 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (holding that [w]hen the record shows that the trial court gave an incomplete or incorrect admonishment, there is a prima facie showing that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty.”); see also Castaneda v. State, No. 14-04-01173-CR, 2006 WL 561898 , *1 (Tex.App.-Hous *223 ton [14 DistJ Mar. 02, 2006, pet. filed) (not designated for publication) (stating that “[b]ecause appellant did not produce a record of the plea hearing, it is impossible to determine from the appellate record whether the trial court orally ad

2005Dusenberry , 915 S.W.2d at 949 ; see Ex parte Wilson , 716 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. Crim.

1985The court of appeals concluded the plea was therefore shown to have been induced by the agreement that the search could be appealed (when Haney in fact would operate to prevent fulfillment of that agreement); accordingly, the plea could not be said to have been voluntary, citing Mooney (Dean) v. State, 615 S.W.2d 776 (1981) [hereinafter “Mooney ”]; see also Wooten v. State, 612 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).

1985The court of appeals concluded the plea was therefore shown to have been induced by the agreement that the search could be appealed (when Haney in fact would operate to prevent fulfillment of that agreement); accordingly, the plea could not be said to have been voluntary, citing Mooney (Dean) v. State, 615 S.W.2d 776 (1981) [hereinafter "Mooney" ]; see also Wooten v. State, 612 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).