Goodie v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Goodie v. State

745 S.W.2d 379, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, 1988 WL 13047

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 24, 1988

DocketNo. 847-87

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 745 S.W.2d 379 (Goodie v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodie v. State, 745 S.W.2d 379, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, 1988 WL 13047 (Tex. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

WHITE, Judge.

Appellant pled guilty to a charge of burglary of a habitation. The trial court deferred adjudication for five years, and assessed a $500.00 fine. After appellant violated the conditions of the deferral, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to 30 years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed by the Houston Court of Appeals in a published opinion dated June 11, 1987. Goodie v. State, 735 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1987), opinion on rehearing 737 S.W.2d 37. Appellant petitioned this Court for discretionary review to determine whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to admonish appellant regarding his plea, with consent of appellant’s attorney.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the case does not merit reversal and will refuse the petition. As with every case where discretionary review is refused, however, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Our refusal to grant the petition for discretionary review should not be construed as approval of a practice of having someone other than the trial judge deliver the admonishments to a defendant. Article 26.13(a), V.A.C.C.P., states in pertinent part: “Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant ...” Id. See also Whitten v. State, 587 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

With this disclaimer, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

TEAGUE, J., would grant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON REFUSAL OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

WHITE, Judge.

Appellant pled guilty to a charge of burglary of a habitation. The trial court deferred adjudication for five years, and assessed a $500.00 fine. After appellant violated the conditions of the deferral, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to 30 years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed by the Houston Court of Appeals in a published opinion dated June 11, 1987. Goodie v. State, 735 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1987), opinion on rehearing 737 S.W.2d 37. Appellant petitioned this Court for discretionary review to determine whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to admonish appellant regarding his plea, with consent of appellant’s attorney.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the case does not merit reversal and will refuse the petition. As with every case where discretionary review is refused, however, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Our refusal to grant the petition for discretionary review should not be construed as approval of a practice of having someone other than the trial judge deliver the admonishments to a defendant. Article 26.13(a), V.A.C.C.P., states in pertinent part: “Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant ...” Id. See also Whitten v. State, 587 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

With this disclaimer, we refuse appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

TEAGUE, J., would grant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 S.W.2d 379, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 33, 1988 WL 13047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodie-v-state-texcrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack