Von Schounmacher v. State
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 5 S.W.3d 221 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1999 |
| Parties | (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) JAMES VON SCHOUNMACHER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS NO. 1335-98 |
Page 221
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS BEXAR COUNTY
Page 222
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted in 1993 for the offense of burglary of a building. He subsequently entered into a plea bargain with the state, in which he pled nolo contendere to burglary of a building. In exchange for his plea of guilty, the state agreed to recommend that punishment be assessed at eight years confinement and also recommended deferred adjudication. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on eight years probation.
On November 1, 1996, the state filed a motion, based on an allegation of a new felony violation, to adjudicate appellant's guilt and revoke his probation. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered a finding of guilty and sentenced appellant to twenty years confinement.
In his appeal, appellant argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred in rendering a sentence that exceeded the sentence recommended by the state and accepted by the court under the 1993 plea agreement. The Court of Appeals agreed with appellant that the trial court had improperly sentenced him to a term of imprisonment greater than he had bargained for. Von Schounmacher v. State, No. 04-97-00320-CR, slip op. at 8-9 (Tex. App.--San Antonio June 13, 1998) (not designated for publication), 1998 WL 281837, at *5. It reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause so that the trial court could either sentence appellant in accordance with the plea agreement or allow him to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere. Id. at 9-10, 1998 WL 281837, at *5. We granted the state's petition for discretionary review on the following ground:
In its only ground for review, the state respectfully submits that the Fourth Court of Appeals erred when it held that the trial court improperly sentenced Von Schounmacher. It is the state's contention that a defendant who has been adjudicated guilty after being placed on community supervision pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12, 5, is subject to the full range of punishment if and when the probation is revoked.
The Court of Appeals based its decision on Ervin v. State, 955 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997). We recently reversed the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. State, No. 10-98-349-CR
...Ramirez to a prison term within the relevant statutory limits but longer than his probationary period. Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Walker v. State, 557 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Issue three is Likewise, a prison term of 20 years for mur......
-
McClellan v. State, NO. 02-10-00397-CR
...guilt previously deferred, it is restricted in the sentence it imposes only by the relevant statutory limits. Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref'd) (holding that punishment imposed withi......
-
Lawrence v. State, No. 02–13–00021–CR.
...is revoked, the trial court may generally impose any punishment within the range authorized by statute. Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Thus, when reviewing excessiveness in a case in which the trial court has adjudicated guilt based upon the violation of d......
-
Poss v. State, NO. 02-12-00010-CR
...the trial court may generally impose any punishment authorized by statute within the statutory range. See Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In part of his sole issue, Poss argues that "other than [his] plea of true regarding drinking alcohol and a few othe......
-
Ramirez v. State, No. 10-98-349-CR
...Ramirez to a prison term within the relevant statutory limits but longer than his probationary period. Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Walker v. State, 557 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Issue three is Likewise, a prison term of 20 years for mur......
-
Lawrence v. State, No. 02–13–00021–CR.
...is revoked, the trial court may generally impose any punishment within the range authorized by statute. Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Thus, when reviewing excessiveness in a case in which the trial court has adjudicated guilt based upon the violation of d......
-
McClellan v. State, NO. 02-10-00397-CR
...guilt previously deferred, it is restricted in the sentence it imposes only by the relevant statutory limits. Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Kim v. State, 283 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref'd) (holding that punishment imposed withi......
-
Poss v. State, NO. 02-12-00010-CR
...the trial court may generally impose any punishment authorized by statute within the statutory range. See Von Schounmacher v. State, 5 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In part of his sole issue, Poss argues that "other than [his] plea of true regarding drinking alcohol and a few othe......