Harris v. State, 46654
| Decision Date | 03 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46654,46654 |
| Parties | Audrey Mae HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Goodwin & Matheny, Beaumont, for appellant.
Tom Hanna, Dist. Atty., John R. DeWitt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty. and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is possession of heroin; the punishment, upon a plea of guilty before a jury, eighteen (18) years.
Appellant's first ground of error is that she was not properly admonished before the court accepted her plea of guilty.
At the outset, appellant plead not guilty. During the course of the trial she changed her plea to that of guilty.
In the absence of the jury the court admonished appellant as to the range of punishment. He inquired whether her plea was 'voluntary' and whether she had adequately discussed her case with her attorney. However, there is an entire absence of any admonishment concerning force or fear, or promise or persuasion. Inquiry concerning these considerations is requisite for minimum compliance with Article 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. See Heathcock v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 570, Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 545. Cf. Espinosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 172, and Mitchell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 174.
For the error stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
I concur in the result reached, but would further point out that the admonishment was deficient for failing to inquire if the plea was uninfluenced by any 'delusive hope of pardon.' I must express my puzzlement at the inference that if there had been an inquiry as to whether the guilty plea was 'uninfluenced by any consideration of fear or any persuasion' there has been a minimum compliance with the mandatory provisions of Article 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., and any inquiry concerning 'delusive hope of pardon' contained in the same sentence of the statute is no longer mandatory or even necessary.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...inquiry as to 'fear' or 'persuasion' as essential to satisfy the 'minimal requirements' of the statute. For example, in Harris v. State, 500 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the majority, speaking through Judge Morrison, held that mere inquiry as to whether the plea was voluntary was insuffici......
-
Bosworth v. State
...in the mandatory statute for determination are mentioned or not. 7 Yet on the same day (July 3, 1973), the majority in Harris v. State, 500 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), speaking through Judge Morrison held that a mere inquiry as to whether the plea was 'voluntary' was insufficient, but tha......
-
Guster v. State
...as essential to satisfy the 'minimal requirements' or reflect a 'minimal compliance' with the statute. For example, in Harris v. State, 500 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the majority speaking through Judge Morrison held that a mere inquiry as to whether the plea was voluntary was insufficie......
-
Mitchell v. State, 49216
...(March 5, 1973) on appeal to this Court, wherein she was claiming that her plea of guilty was illegally obtained. (See Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 126). The court did not err in refusing this The judgment is affirmed. Opinion approved by the Court. 1 The court's definition of '......