Wade v. State
| Decision Date | 08 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 48432,48432 |
| Citation | 508 S.W.2d 851 |
| Parties | Adam J. WADE, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Frank Altgelt Adams (On appeal only), Beaumont, for appellant.
Tom Hanna, Dist. Atty. and John R. DeWitt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a felony conviction for passing a worthless check wherein the punishment was assessed by the court at three (3) years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
In his sole ground of error appellant contends that trial judge erred in not making further inquiry into his reasons for pleading guilty before the jury when during the admonishment he twice stated he hoped for 'a parole.'
The trial court carefully and exhaustively inquired into appellant's understanding of the charges against him, determined appellant's age and other background information, determined that appellant was pleading guilty because he was guilty, advised him of the range of punishment (consequences of his plea), and determined after lengthy inquiry that he was not prompted to plead guilty because of fear, persuasion, 'illusory hope of pardon,' coercion, force, promise, etc.
Appellant relies upon the following portion of the record to support his contention:
'MR. ROEBUCK (Defense Counsel): Yes, Your Honor.'
The foregoing clearly shows that the court did make further inquiry after appellant's remarks and did determine that no one had promised the appellant parole and made further inquiry of defense counsel with regard to the same. We find no merit to appellant's contention. It is only natural for an individual pleading guilty to a felony to hope that in the future he will be paroled, but where such hope is not based on any promise and is not a delusive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flowers v. State
...guilty pleas before and after establishment of the Helms rule. See Richards v. State, 562 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Wade v. State, 508 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Davila v. State, 496 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Prudhomme v. State, 495 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Jacobs v. State, ......
-
Cooper v. State
...under this restrictive rule, the voluntariness of a guilty plea could still be challenged. See id.; see also, e.g., Wade v. State, 508 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). The legislature responded to Helms by adding the 1977 proviso to article 44.02. See Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 734-35......
-
Session v. State, 06-98-00109-CR
...v. State, 612 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Richards v. State, 562 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Wade v. State, 508 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Davila v. State, 496 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Prudhomme v. State, 495 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Jacobs v. State, ......
-
Ex parte Young, 68083
...it is only natural for an individual pleading guilty to a felony to be concerned over his future parole date, see Wade v. State, 508 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), where the plea is based upon a promise, such promise may render the plea of guilty Petitioner has the burden of convincingly dem......