Ex parte Watson, 48377

Decision Date24 April 1974
Docket NumberNo. 48377,48377
Citation508 S.W.2d 399
PartiesEx parte Delmar Lee WATSON.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Robert Scogin (Court-Appointed), Kermit, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a hearing at which petitioner's application for habeas corpus was denied.

The petitioner plead guilty in 1973 to two charges of forgery, and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each, although the sentences were to run concurrently. No appeal from the convictions was taken.

Petitioner raises several contentions in urging that the writ should be granted; however, in view of our disposition of his contention regarding Art. 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. admonishments, it will not be necessary to discuss the others.

With regard to cause #2426, the record reveals the following:

'THE COURT: How do you wish to plead?

'MR. WATSON: Guilty.

'THE COURT: Now then, after you have consented to waive a trial by a Jury and after the indictment has been read to you and you have entered your plea, I wish to admonish you at this time of the consequences of the plea. This is not because of any promise made to you that you're entering this plea?

'MR. WATSON: No.

'THE COURT: All right. You understand what you're charged with?

'MR. WATSON: Yeah.

'THE COURT: You understand that the punishment for forgery is by confinement in the State Penitentiary for a period of not less than two nor more than seven years?

'MR. WATSON: Yeah.

'THE COURT: And knowing all these things, do you still insist on entering your plea of guilty?

'MR. WASTON: Yes.

'THE COURT: All right. You're in your right mind at this time and understand everything that is going on here?

'MR. WATSON: Yes.

'PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Is the Court making a finding, for the record, that he is in his right mind at this time?

'THE COURT: Yes. For the purpose of the record, I do find that the Defendant is sane and understands what is going on here and that he has intelligently and knowingly entered his plea of guilty.

'PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Does the Court find that he is entering his plea not because of any coercion or duress or promise of reward or hope for pardon prompting him to confess his guilt?

'THE COURT: Yes, I do so find.'

The court had previously asked petitioner if he was waiving a jury trial '. . . not because of any promise or any delusive hope of reward or delusive hope of pardon?' The court had also inquired as to his sanity. However, these admonishments related to the waiver of the jury.

As will be seen from portion of the record...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ex parte Taylor
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 5, 1975
    ...Ex parte Scott, 505 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Ex parte Dickerson, 508 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Ex parte Watson, 508 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).2 Our holding does not apply to cases on direct appeal.1 The consequences of a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere have long been ......
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 25, 1975
    ...as to 'fear.' Apparently the statutory requirement as to an inquiry as to 'fear' was still alive and well. See also Ex parte Watson, 508 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Pigg v. State, 508 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Cevilla v. State, 515 S.W.2d 676 In Guster v. State, supra, the court was c......
  • Guster v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 30, 1975
    ...of fear.' 2 Apparently the statutory requirement as to an inquiry as to Fear was still alive and well. See also Ex parte Watson, 508 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Pigg v. State, 508 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Cevilla v. State, 515 S.W.2d 676 Now confronted in the instant case with an adm......
  • Pinson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 17, 1975
    ...as to 'any consideration of fear' seemed alive and well. See Wade v. State, 511 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). See also Ex parte Watson, 508 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Pigg v. State, 508 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Cevilla v. State, 515 S.W.2d 676 When confronted, however, with an admonis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT