Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 08 November 1972
• Docket Number: No. 46083,46083
• Citation: 487 S.W.2d 363
• Parties: Janie R. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 363

487 S.W.2d 363

Janie R. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46083.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1972.

Dunnam, Dunnam & Dunnam, by W. V. Dunnam, Jr., Waco, for appellant.

Martin D. Eichelberger, Dist. Atty., Joe Guyton and Randall Sellers, Asst. Dist. Attys., Waco, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of marihuana.Trial was before the court and punishment was assessed at five years.

Appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to allow her to withdraw her plea of guilty prior to sentencing for the reason that her guilty plea was induced by the promises of the prosecuting attorney and officers that they would see that the judge would grant her probation.

On August 2, 1971, appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of possession of marihuana.At the conclusion of the trial the court found appellant guilty and assessed her punishment at five years.The court announced that sentencing would be delayed until a pre-sentence investigation could be conducted which would enable the court to determine whether appellant's application for probation should be granted.On February 7, 1972, appellant's motion to withdraw her plea of guilty was heard and denied.Sentence was pronounced on February 25, 1972.

The nature of this case requires a relatively detailed recitation of the testimony on the hearing to withdraw the plea.

Charles B. Williams¹ testified that officers Rigney, Stieg and Edwards of the Waco Police Department told him that if appellant pled guilty, and cooperated with them, she would get probation.

Appellant testified that two officers promised her in the presence of Assistant District Attorney Guyton that she would get probation; that she was told by the officers the only reason her case was coming to court was so as to not arouse suspicion and that they were satisfied with her cooperation.

Appellant's counsel(at the time the plea of guilty was entered) testified that he talked to the court before the plea was entered and as a result of such conference told appellant that the court was reluctant to grant probation, but that the court would order a pre-sentence report and abide by the decision of the Probation Department.

Assistant District Attorney Guyton testified that officers Stieg and Rigney came to his office with appellant to see what could be done for appellant if she cooperated with the police.Guyton said he understood this to mean to try and get appellant probation and that he told appellant that the Judge is the only one that could grant probation and that he'jealously guarded that part of his duties,' but that he would go to the Judge and explain what appellant had done for them and ask the Judge to give her probation in return.Guyton further testified that he, the Judge and appellant's attorney Duty had a conference about the case prior to any hearing and that the Judge told them he was reluctant to grant probation, that Duty then talked to appellant in the court room out of their presence and returned and asked the Judge if he would grant a probation investigation.The Judge agreed to grant the investigation and stated that he would abide by the recommendation therein.Duty returned to the court room, talked to appellant, and appellant entered a plea of guilty.Guyton testified that he heard the investigation was going badly for appellant and that he and Officer Rigney, in accordance with their promise, pled with the Judge to grant appellant probation.

Adult Probation Officer Maddex testified that based upon his investigation, it was his finding that appellant would have a poor chance of making probation.

The Honorable Carl C. Anderson, Judge of the 54th Judicial District Court, testified that prior to appellant entering a plea of guilty he told appellant's attorney Duty and Assistant District Attorney Guyton that the court was not disposed under any circumstances to grant appellant probation, but that he did agree to ask for a pre-sentence investigation and told Duty and Guyton that he would rely heavily on the recommendation of the probation officer.

The record reflects that before the court received appellant's plea of guilty the appellant was not only admonished in accordance with Art. 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., but was asked by the Court:

'Are you pleading guilty to this charge Mrs. Williams, because you have been promised by anyone, or led to believe in any way whatsoever, that if you do plead guilty to this charge, before this Court, this Court would reward you with low punishment, parole or probation, or anything of that nature?'

Appellant's answer to the foregoing question was 'No.'

Appellant testified that she'assumed it was the necessary formalities in pleading guilty like they told me to' as the reason for answering the court's questions in the manner she did and that she was told that the plea of guilty was a...