Harrison v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Harrison v. State

663 S.W.2d 120, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5580

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 15, 1983

DocketNo. 01-82-0846-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 663 S.W.2d 120 (Harrison v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrison v. State, 663 S.W.2d 120, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5580 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

JACK SMITH, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery on a plea of guilty and sentenced by the court to 10 years and 1 day incarceration.

In his second ground of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in telling him, after he had been adjudged guilty, that probation of his sentence was a matter for the court’s discretion. A conviction for aggravated robbery precludes the possibility of probation from the court. Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 42.12 § 3f(a)(lXE)(Vernon 1979). The trial court did not comply with Tex.Code Crim.Pro. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (c) (Vernon Supp.1982-1983), which requires proper admonishments on a plea of guilty. Without proper admonishments, a guilty plea cannot be voluntary. Ramirez v. State, 655 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ hist.). Appellant’s guilty plea was not voluntary, since he was not fully advised by the court of the direct consequences of his plea in accordance with article 26.13(a), (c). Appellant’s second ground of error is sustained.

We have considered appellant’s other grounds of error, and we find them to be without merit.

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

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

OPINION

JACK SMITH, Justice.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery on a plea of guilty and sentenced by the court to 10 years and 1 day incarceration.

In his second ground of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in telling him, after he had been adjudged guilty, that probation of his sentence was a matter for the court’s discretion. A conviction for aggravated robbery precludes the possibility of probation from the court. Tex.Code Crim.Pro.Ann. art. 42.12 § 3f(a)(lXE)(Vernon 1979). The trial court did not comply with Tex.Code Crim.Pro. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (c) (Vernon Supp.1982-1983), which requires proper admonishments on a plea of guilty. Without proper admonishments, a guilty plea cannot be voluntary. Ramirez v. State, 655 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ hist.). Appellant’s guilty plea was not voluntary, since he was not fully advised by the court of the direct consequences of his plea in accordance with article 26.13(a), (c). Appellant’s second ground of error is sustained.

We have considered appellant’s other grounds of error, and we find them to be without merit.

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 S.W.2d 120, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-state-texapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack