DocketNumber： 06-03-00057-CR
Filed Date： 3/9/2004
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/7/2015
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-03-00057-CR
______________________________
ADAM ALONZO NARANJO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd Judicial District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court No. 916339
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Adam Alonzo Naranjo was convicted in the single trial of two separately indicted cases, both of which charged Naranjo with aggravated sexual assault. This appeal concerns his conviction for aggravated sexual assault under trial cause number 916339. The causes were appealed separately, but briefed together.
Since the briefs and arguments raised therein are identical in each appeal, for the reasons stated in Naranjo v. State, No. 06-03-00056-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: February 18, 2004
Date Decided: March 9, 2004
Do Not Publish
notice and opportunity to respond violates the inmate's right to due process. Id. at 942; see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986) ("By requiring the government to follow appropriate procedures when its agents decided to 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,' the Due Process Clause promotes fairness in such decisions."); Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) (Due Process Clause "intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government"). A defendant, however, may also affirmatively, voluntarily, and knowingly waive any rights afforded to him or her--even constitutional due-process rights. Wheeler v. State, 628 S.W.2d 800, 802 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Franks v. State, 513 S.W.2d 584, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). The record before us shows Doyle affirmatively, intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly waived his right to contest any future garnishment proceeding to collect fees, costs, and fines connected with his underlying criminal conviction. While Doyle now claims his waiver regarding garnishment was involuntary, the record before us refutes such a claim.
We conclude Doyle's voluntary waiver of his due-process right to notice and opportunity to contest the garnishment proceeding precludes this Court from granting the requested relief. Cf. Moore v. State, 240 S.W.3d 248, 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (discussing other plea agreement provisions that have been included and requiring such contract be binding as to all aspects of agreement absent evidence agreement was made unknowingly or involuntarily). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: September 23, 2008
Date Decided: September 24, 2008