Martinez v. State
| Decision Date | 09 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 1638-97,1638-97 |
| Citation | 981 S.W.2d 195 |
| Parties | Michael MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Lisa Harris, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
James D. Rosenkild, Asst. Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was charged with burglary of a vehicle in 1992, to which he pled guilty. As part of his plea bargain, the finding of guilt was deferred, and appellant was placed on probation for five years. The trial court later extended the period of probation after a hearing on a motion to revoke. Upon a subsequent motion to revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed appellant's punishment at ten years of confinement. The Court of Appeals reversed appellant's conviction, holding that appellant's initial plea of guilty was not voluntarily made because he was incorrectly admonished as to the maximum range of punishment for his offense. Martinez v. State, 953 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1997). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that appellant's plea was involuntary.
Appellant pled guilty to a third degree felony under which he faced a range of punishment from two to ten years. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34. Appellant signed written admonishments in conjunction with his plea of guilty, which were part of a form containing spaces for the appropriate minimum and maximum length of imprisonment. Appellant was correctly informed that he was subject to a maximum sentence of ten years and a minimum of two. However, the rote language of the form also indicated the possibility of a life sentence, applicable only when the offense is a first degree felony, and that language was not stricken from the written admonishments. Thus, the admonishment that appellant signed indicated that the punishment for a third degree felony was "confinement in prison for life or for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years." In making oral admonishments, the trial court inquired as to whether appellant was aware of the range of punishment applicable in his case, but did not iterate the actual range of imprisonment he faced.
In its review of this case, the Court of Appeals determined that the admonishments given to appellant in regard to the range of punishment substantially complied with those required by TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 26.13. 1 Martinez v. State, 953 S.W.2d at 807. However, in examining the record as a whole, the Court of Appeals determined that appellant could not have been fully aware of the consequences of his plea because he was erroneously admonished that the maximum punishment he risked was life imprisonment. Id. at 807. Consequently, the Court of Appeals determined that appellant was harmed and had met his burden in demonstrating that his plea was involuntary. Id.
We agree with the Court of Appeals' determination that the trial court's admonishments substantially complied with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, we disagree that appellant has affirmatively shown that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed, such that the plea was rendered involuntary. Appellant's contention that he was incorrectly admonished regarding the maximum punishment which could be assessed is supported by the record. In admonishing a defendant, however, substantial compliance by the trial court is deemed sufficient unless the defendant was not aware of the consequences of his plea and was misled or harmed by the admonishment. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 26.13(c). Whether the given admonishments are in substantial compliance with the required warnings is an issue that should be considered when the trial court has addressed the admonishment in some form or fashion. Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 267 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). When a record shows that the trial court delivered an incorrect admonishment regarding the range of punishment, and the actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston v. State
...J., concurring). When considering the voluntariness of a guilty plea, we must examine the entire record. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (per curiam). If the trial court properly admonished the defendant before a guilty plea was entered, there is a prima facie sho......
-
Briggs v. State
...blood draw was not justified by exigent circumstances in that case).40 Tex. Code Crim. Proc . art. 26.13(b)41 Martinez v. State , 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).42 Ex parte Moussazedeh , 361 S.W.3d 684, 688, 690-91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (holding that, (1) counsel’s misinformati......
-
Lewis v. State, 01-15-00778-CR
...entering his plea, a prima facie showing is established that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Riosv. State, 377 S.W.3d 131, 136 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref'd). A trial court's admonishment is suf......
-
In re R.R.S.
...was properly admonished, it presents a prima facie showing that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Martinez v. State , 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). To prevail on a claim of an involuntary plea, Appellant must then demonstrate that he did not fully understand the consequ......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...showing that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily and the defendant has the burden of proof to show otherwise. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstra......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...showing that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily and the defendant has the burden of proof to show otherwise. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstra......
-
Table of Cases
...1994, pet. ref’d .), §15:72 Martinez v. State, 980 S.W.2d 662 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. ref’d ), §20:21.7.5 Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), §4:92 Martin v. Darnell, 960 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1997, no pet .), §15:32.1.3 Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...showing that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily and the defendant has the burden of proof to show otherwise. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstra......