Gonzales v. State, 43169
| Decision Date | 04 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 43169,43169 |
| Citation | 458 S.W.2d 926 |
| Parties | Jesse GONZALES, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leo Dougherty, San Antonio, (On Appeal Only), for appellant.
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Charles Butts and Sparta Bitsis, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, 28 years.
Prior to trial the appellant, represented to two court appointed attorneys, filed his pre-trial motion to suppress his written extrajudical confession. See Article 28.01, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Following a hearing on September 30, 1969, on said motion in which the appellant testified the court found the confession to have been voluntarily made and admissible in evidence. The trial judge filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law among the papers of the cause. See Article 38.22, V.A.C.C.P.
On November 13, 1969, the State having waived the death penalty, the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court and waived trial by jury. He was duly admonished by the court as to the consequences of his plea and persisted in his plea of guilty to the murder charge. The procedure utilized by the court in accepting the guilty plea and approving the stipulations offered in accordance with Article 1.15, V.A.C.C.P., was the same careful procedure as described by this court in some detail in DeGay v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 205. Among the sworn stipulations which were introduced into evidence is found the statement that 'the defendant judicially confesses that on January 17, 1969, he unlawfully, voluntarily and with his malice aforethought (did) kill and murder Solomon Abodo, Sr., by then and there stabbing him with a knife and the defendant further stipulates that his confession (State's Exhibit #6) is voluntary and in all things admissible and further agrees that it may be admitted into evidence.'
The appellant further agreed that all stipulations entered into were true and correct as well as the allegations of the indictment.
Upon recommendation of the State the court assessed the punishment at 28 years. Sentence was imposed on the same day.
Several days later the appellant gave timely notice of appeal and trial counsel was permitted to withdraw and other counsel was appointed for the purpose of appeal.
It is appellant's contention on appeal that the court erred in its refusal to grant the pre-trial motion to suppress his confession 'which erroneous ruling by the court impelled the appellant to change his plea from 'not guilty' to 'guilty."
First, we cannot agree that the court erred in its ruling. The findings of fact and conclusions of law that the appellant was duly and properly warned of his rights and waived such rights and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State
...and any pre-trial irregularities, including any error on overruling pre-trial motion to suppress confession. Gonzales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). For other state and federal cases, see 26 U.C.L.A. Law Review 360, "Conditioned Guilty Pleas," footnote # 3.This Texas rule is in......
-
Young v. State
...whether an appeal after a conditional plea was available. See Andrade v. State, 470 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. Cr. App. 1971); Gonzales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. Cr. App. Page 665 We have stated that the Helms Rule of waiver prevented a conditional plea of guilty.24 In light of the cases we have......
-
Jack v. State
...guilty plea. See Fierro v. State, 437 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Soto v. State, 456 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Gonzales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Andrade v. State, 470 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Salinas v. State, 478 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Utsman v. State, ......
-
Shallhorn v. State
...made without realizing that the plea of guilty before a jury waives any such error for the purpose of appeal. See Gonzales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). A supplemental brief filed in the Court of Appeals raised the question of whether the guilty plea should have been accepted ......