Moon v. State
Decision Date | 04 October 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 54352,54352 |
Citation | 572 S.W.2d 681 |
Parties | Henry Earl MOON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ealy A. Bennett, Moncie Rasmus, Jr., Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Alvin M. Titus and Gerard Guerinot, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, for the State.
EN BANC.
OPINION ON THE STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
The majority of the Court now adopts for its opinion the dissenting opinion on original submission.The "straw man" argument presented, the assumptions made, and the discussions concerning the voluntariness of the plea, in the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, are wholly irrelevant.The record reflects that the appellant was carefully admonished concerning his guilty plea and that his constitutional rights were fully protected, but in view of the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part a portion of the record will be incorporated in an appendix to this opinion.This portion of the record shows the appellant was fully and completely admonished and that he was accorded due process.
The State's Motion for Rehearing is granted; the judgment is affirmed.
Judge Carl Dally, a commissioner for this Court, submitted a proposed opinion affirming this conviction.I adopt his opinion as my dissent.
The judgment should be affirmed.
"Against the peace and dignity of the State."Signed Foreman of the Grand Jury.
Sir, to this indictment, how do you plead?Guilty or not guilty?
What is your desire?
Do you understand the penalty for that offense?
Do you understand that?
And by Mr. Bennett, both of whom are with you today.Have they been employed by you, or were they appointed by the Court?
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Houston v. State
...appellant's guilty plea. A trial judge, however, is not required to sua sponte withdraw a defendant's guilty plea, even if evidence is brought to the judge's attention making the defendant's innocence evident.
Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Tex.Crim. App.1978); Fisher v. State, 104 S.W.3d 923, 924 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Appellant seems to implicitly suggest, however, that the trial court had a duty to withdraw his plea because he was not eligible for deferredplea entered before the court or jury when the evidence reasonably and fairly raised an issue concerning the accused's innocence. See Griffin v. State, 703 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, 682 (1978). In Moon, the Court of Criminal Appeals abrogated the requirement that a trial court sua sponte withdraw a guilty plea entered before the court when evidence raises a question concerning the defendant's innocence. 572 S.W.2dcourt or jury when the evidence reasonably and fairly raised an issue concerning the accused's innocence. See Griffin v. State, 703 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, 682 (1978). In Moon, the Court of Criminal Appeals abrogated the requirement that a trial court sua sponte withdraw a guilty plea entered before the court when evidence raises a question concerning the defendant's innocence. 572 S.W.2d at 681. However, courts... -
Saenz v. State
...effectively withdraw the testimony here. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND the cause to the trial court. 1 Guilty pleas entered before the trial court are subject to different rules. See Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 778 n. 11 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). The trial court need not withdraw the guilty plea in such a case because the trial court, as trier of facts, may find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense, or not guilty despite the plea.
Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Tex.Crim.App.1978)... -
Mello v. State
...1982, no pet'n). It is the duty of the trial court to consider the evidence submitted, and, as the trier of fact, the trial court may find the appellant guilty of a lesser offense and assess the proper punishment or may find the defendant not guilty.
Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); see also Solis v. State, 798 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1990, pet'n ref'd). Thus, as the trier of fact, the trial court was authorized to find appellant not guilty of the greater... -
Owens v. State
...held that even when a jury has been waived and the plea is before the court without a jury, the trial court is required on its own motion to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea when the evidence introduced makes evident the innocence of the accused.
Id.The Moon court There now seems to be no valid reason for the court to withdraw the guilty plea and enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant when the defendant enters a plea of guilty before the court after waiving athat even when a jury has been waived and the plea is before the court without a jury, the trial court is required on its own motion to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea when the evidence introduced makes evident the innocence of the accused. Id. The Mooncourt There now seems to be no valid reason for the court to withdraw the guilty plea and enter a plea of not guilty for the defendant when the defendant enters a plea of guilty before the court after waiving a jury. ItIt would serve no purpose to withdraw the plea of guilty and enter a not guilty plea. Those cases in which this Court has reached a different result are overruled to the extent they conflict with the opinion in this case. Id.We agree with the State that neither Gates nor Moon is directly on point inasmuch as both cases dealt with situations wherein evidence was raised regarding a defendant's innocence, rather than a situation concerning the voluntariness of the defendant's plea....