Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47096,47096 |
| Citation | 500 S.W.2d 115 |
| Parties | Lee Arthur JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joe B. Goodwin, Beaumont, on appeal only, for appellant.
Tom Hanna, Dist. Atty., John R. DeWitt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
GREEN, Commissioner.
The conviction, on a plea of guilty, is for robbery by assault. The punishment, assessed by the jury, is for fifteen years.
Appellant's only ground of error reads:
'The Trial Court did not properly admonish the defendant of the consequences of a plea of guilty in direct violation of Art. 28.13 (26.13) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in that the trial court did not question the appellant as to whether or not he was influenced by any consideration of fear or by any persuasion or delusive hope of pardon which might have prompted him to confess his guilt.'
The record reflects that upon arraignment, after the selection of the jury, the appellant entered his plea of guilty. Thereupon, the court sent the jury from the courtroom, and explained to appellant the range of punishment applicable to the charge of robbery by assault, and inquired of appellant whether he had sufficiently discussed this matter with his attorney, and whether he was satisfied with the representation given by his attorney, to both of which appellant answered in the affirmative. Then the following colloquy occurred between the court and appellant:
At this time, the appellant signed and swore to a 'Stipulation of Evidence' approved by appellant, his attorney and the court. In this judicial confession he admitted his guilt to the offense of robbery by assault as charged. After this stipulation was filed, the court accepted the plea of guilty.
In addition to the stipulation, appellant testified, freely admitting his guilt. His main efforts were directed at securing a verdict granting him probation. He failed in this attempt.
We consider the explanation of the range of punishment, and the negative answer of appellant to the court's question whether he had been abused or threatened, and whether anybody had done anything to make him enter a plea of guilty if he were not guilty, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...it appeared that on some occasions the majority was still requiring inquiry as to 'fear' and 'persuasion.' See, i.e., Johnson v. State, 500 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Ex parte Scott, 505 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (an opinion by Judge Douglas); Ex parte Dickerson, 508 S.W.2d 387 In Bos......
-
Bosworth v. State
...493 S.W.2d 172; Mitchell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 174; Clayton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 176; Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 115; Moreno v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d Appellant contends there is a variance in the indictment alleging that the property was owne......
-
Guster v. State
...S.W.2d 545; Crocker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 566; and Rogers v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 42.1 See, i.e., Johnson v. State, 500 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).2 This concurrence noted that the dissenting opinion by Judge Douglas would find the single question 'Are you pleading g......
-
Cameron v. State
...Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 127; Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 126; Jorden v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 117; Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 115; Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 497 S.W.2d 306; Higginbotham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 497 S.W.2d 299; Prudehomme v. State, Te......