Ex parte Battenfield
Decision Date | 07 April 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 43916,43916 |
Citation | 466 S.W.2d 569 |
Parties | Ex parte Floyd L. BATTENFIELD. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard Don Coan, Stephenville, for petitioner.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is a post conviction habeas corpus proceedings brought under the provisions of Article 11.07, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., by an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections.
Following an evidentiary hearing in the convicting court the record was forwarded to this court along with the trial judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Ex parte Young, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 824. All of such findings and conclusions were unfavorable to the petitioner's allegations.
We ordered this matter filed and set for submission solely to determine petitioner's allegation that he was not properly admonished of the consequences of his guilty pleas.
The record reflects that on July 2, 1970, the petitioner entered guilty pleas in cause Nos. 3984 and 3985 charging him in the 29th District Court of Hood County with the offenses of burglary and felony theft arising out of separate transactions. The punishment in each case was assessed at six years and the sentences were expressly ordered to run concurrently.
At the evidentiary hearing the petitioner, to support his allegation now under consideration, offered into evidence a certified copy of the transcription of the court reporter's notes of the 'trial' of said cause Nos. 3984 and 3985. Such transcription reflects the following admonishment as being given when both causes were called for trial:
Such transcription reflects that thereafter evidence as to both the burglary and theft cases was offered.
To counter such evidence offered by the petitioner the State introduced at the evidentiary hearing the judgments entered in such causes which in each case reflected that the petitioner
Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P., provides that:
'If the defendant Pleads guilty, or enters a plea of nolo contendere He shall be admonished by the court of the consequences; and neither of such pleas shall be received unless it plainly appears he is sane and is uninfluenced by any consideration of fear, or by any persuasion, or delusive hope of pardon, prompting him to confess his guilt.' (emphasis supplied)
Article 27.13, V.A.C.C.P., provides in part that:
'A plea of 'guilty' or a plea of 'nolo contendere' in a felony case must be made in open court by the defendant in person; and the proceedings shall be as provided in Articles 26.13, 26.14, and 27.02. * * *'
In the concurring opinion in Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 941, 943, it was written:
'This Court has consistently held that the provisions of Article 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., are mandatory and the prerequisites therein set out must be complied with as a condition precedent to the validity of a plea of guilty and that such question may be raised at any time. May v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 534, 209 S.W.2d 606; Alexander v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 288 S.W.2d 779; Braggs v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 405, 334 S.W.2d 793; Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 917; Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 430. See also 97 A.L.R.2d 549, 584, 586, 602, citing numerous Texas authorities.
'The 'consequences of the plea' as used in the statute has been interpreted as meaning 'the punishment provided by law for the offense and the punishment which could be inflicted under his plea.' Alexander v. State, supra.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bonner v. State
...Bishop v. Langlois (1969), 106 R.I. 56, 256 A.2d 20; Nachtigall v. Erickson (1970), 85 S.D. 122, 178 N.W.2d 198; Ex Parte Battenfield (1971), Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 569; Woods v. Rhay (1966), 68 Wash.2d 601, 414 P.2d 601, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 905, 87 S.Ct. 215, 17 L.Ed.2d 135; State v. H......
-
Ex parte Williams
...This duty is completely separate from defense counsel's duty to provide effective assistance to the defendant. Ex parte Battenfield, 466 S.W.2d 569, 572 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). This Court has long held that the "range of punishment" that must be included in an admonishment under Article 26.13(a)......
-
Ex parte Taylor
...Williams v. State, 415 S.W.2d 917 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Ex parte Humphrey, 456 S.W.2d 118 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ex parte Battenfield, 466 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Crawford v. State, 466 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Vasquez v. State, 477 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and further, that failur......
-
State v. Johnson
...detail by the trial court.' Both Texas cases citing Boykin, Wilson v. State, 456 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), and Ex parte Battenfield, 466 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), simply state trial courts must in accepting a guilty plea of Nolo contendere admonish the defendant and determine the vo......