Mayse v. State, 46777
| Decision Date | 16 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46777,46777 |
| Parties | Robert Frank MAYSE and Reagan R. Ross, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Montford, Lubbock, for appellants.
Joe Smith, Dist. Atty., Seminole, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from convictions for the offense of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: morphine. Punishment was assessed each appellant, upon his plea of guilty, at eight years.
Two grounds of error are urged. One of the contentions is that 'The evidence is insufficient to support the appellants' convictions since there is no evidence of record that the drug morphine is a narcotic drug.' Such contention is without merit.
Article 725b, Sec. 1(12), Vernon's Ann.P.C., states that: "Opium' includes morphine, . . .' and Article 725b, Sec. 1(14), supra, states that: "Narcotic drugs' means coca leaves, opium, . . ..' The appellants' pleas of guilty admitted possession of morphine.
Finally, appellants contend that 'The trial court's admonition failed to inquire of the defendants whether or not the defendants' pleas were uninfluenced first, By any persuasion; second, By any fear; and, third, By any delusive hope of pardon.'
The admonitions herein have been reviewed. As to appellants' specific contentions, we quote from the record:
Although the exact wording of Article 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., was not stated by the trial judge, we conclude that the admonishment given was sufficient compliance with the statute. See, Mitchell v. State, 493 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Espinosa v. State, 493 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
There being no reversible error, the judgments are affirmed.
My predictions were not delusive; today, they are fully realized. The majority has, in effect, successfully abolished Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P.
My concern arose when this Court began to accept as 'sufficient compliance' those admonitions which were clearly substandard according to the statute. Admittedly, I have served on this Court for a relatively short period of time, but I retain the perhaps naive notion that we should follow those guidelines which the legislature has seen fit to establish, unless, of course, the law is unconstitutional.
I dissented in Espinosa v. State, 493 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and Mitchell v. State, 493 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), and for the reasons stated in those causes, I dissent herein. See also,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...also Martinez v. State, 494 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Heathcock v. State, 494 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). In Mayse and Ross v. State, 494 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the majority, speaking through Judge Odom, began inching away from even the so-called 'minimal requirements' establis......
-
Bosworth v. State
...Mitchell is now mandatorily required rather than the statutory requirements. See also Harris v. State, supra. In Mayse and Ross v. State, 494 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the majority, speaking through Judge Odom, said that an inquiry as to whether the guilty plea was prompted by any Force......
-
Guster v. State
...the opinion, observed that the trial court had no inquiry as to 'force,' 'fear,' 'promise' or 'persuasion.' In Mayse and Ross v. State, 494 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the majority speaking through Judge Odom began to inch away from even the so-called 'minimal requirements' established by......
-
Pinson v. State
...'coercion' or 'promise,' which have on occasion been held sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute, see, i.e., Mayse v. State, 494 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Clearly the court's inquiry was not sufficient to show that the appellant was freely and voluntarily entering the nolo c......