Appellate court hears argument on Huerta’s bid to withdraw guilty plea and contest sentencing enhancements

Appellate counsel for Mr. Huerta told the Court of Criminal Appeals in March 2026 that Huerta had filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea and later retained counsel to amend that motion and consolidate it with an appeal of his sentence.

Counsel said Huerta understood from trial counsel that his exposure would be "somewhere between 25 to 30 years," even though the written plea agreement and the plea colloquy on the record repeatedly stated his sentencing range as 25 to 40 years and the defendant twice affirmed understanding that range. Appellate counsel said he was not asking the appellate court to resolve ineffective‑assistance claims now, but instead to address a manifest‑injustice claim that the plea was not knowing or voluntary. "I believed some of what he's saying would go towards an ineffective assistance of counsel," counsel said, describing why the defendant later sought to withdraw his plea.

Courtney Orr, counsel for the state, responded that the record—including the written plea agreement and multiple on‑the‑record questions during the plea colloquy in which the defendant acknowledged the 25–40 range—supports a finding that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Orr urged that the trial court made an implicit credibility determination at the plea hearing that the appellate court should respect: "Those statements and those court's findings during the plea colloquy constitute a formidable barrier that the defendant had to overcome," she said.

Arguing the sentencing issues, defense counsel acknowledged the defendant pleaded as a range‑2 multiple offender but disputed several enhancement factors the trial court considered. Counsel said the state presented four enhancement factors at sentencing—criminal behavior in addition to that necessary for range, leadership of multiple actors, use of a deadly weapon, and lack of hesitation where the risk to life was great—and appealed three of them while conceding the firearm enhancement. Counsel emphasized that three witnesses the state relied on to show a history of drug use were uncharged and had agreements with the state, creating credibility questions.

Orr told the court that, under the applicable standard of review, the trial court had broad discretion to impose any lawful sentence within the applicable range and that Huerta's concession on the firearm enhancement supported a maximum sentence within that range. The state also relied on the pre‑sentence report and testimony it said showed significant drug activity and a factual basis for the trial court's findings.

Panel members pressed both sides on the practical limits of appellate review: whether and how a reviewing court can look behind an on‑the‑record plea colloquy when the defendant later says he misunderstood the range, and whether contesting what trial counsel told the defendant would effectively require pursuing ineffective‑assistance claims. Defense counsel said the motion to withdraw raised colorable post‑conviction issues that, if accepted as true for pleading‑stage purposes, would justify appointing counsel and allowing discovery to develop ineffective‑assistance evidence.

The record discussed at argument included an agreed range of punishment of 25 to 40 years, a sentence of 38 years imposed by the trial court, the state's presentation of four enhancement factors at sentencing, and testimony from the defendant and his father that they understood a lower exposure. Counsel and the panel also discussed case law and the effect of 2005 amendments to the sentencing statute on reviewing enhancement factors.

The court did not announce a decision at the close of argument. The panel thanked counsel, concluded the March 2026 docket and recessed until the April call of the docket. A ruling on the consolidated motion and appeal was not made from the bench.