CUARENTA, ANTHONY LUKE

Cuarenta, a commercial driver’s license (CDL) holder, was issued a citation for speeding. He was traveling 82 miles per hour in a 60-mile-per-hour zone. He entered a plea of no contest in Justice Court and was found guilty. He filed a de novo appeal in a County Court at Law in which he pleaded not guilty. After a hearing, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and suspended imposition of the fine for 180 days.

The State appealed, asserting the order resulted in an illegal sentence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(b). In a de novo appeal of a Class C, a county court may defer further proceedings in the same manner as provided for deferral in justice courts under Article 45.051 if the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.111. This, however, does not apply to “serious traffic violations,” which includes driving 15 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit. Id.; see Tex. Transp. Code § 522.003(5). Article 45.051 does not apply to CDL holders who violate motor vehicle control laws. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.051(f)(2)(A). Cuarenta was a CDL holder who went 22 miles per hour over the speed limit and pleaded not guilty in county court. He was not entitled to a deferred disposition.

The court of appeals questioned its jurisdiction to entertain a State’s appeal from placement on deferred because it had previously held that a suspended sentence is not a sentence. However, the case was transferred from the Tenth Court, which has held the State could appeal a case just like this. See State v. Hollis, 327 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, no pet.). The court of appeals followed that precedent and reversed Cuarenta’s deferred disposition.

Cuarenta argues that deferred is not a “sentence” as that term is defined by Article 42.02 or has been considered by the Court of Criminal Appeals. He asks the Court to resolve the split in the courts of appeals on this issue.