Vega, Ex Parte Cecil Ray

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 27, 2007
DocketAP-75,718
StatusPublished

This text of Vega, Ex Parte Cecil Ray (Vega, Ex Parte Cecil Ray) 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
Vega, Ex Parte Cecil Ray, (Tex. 2007).

Opinion



IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS



NO. AP-75,718
EX PARTE CECIL RAY VEGA, Applicant


ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 24025A-422 IN THE 422
ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

FROM KAUFMAN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N



Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) not objecting to the trial court's failure to properly admonish Applicant; (2) not objecting to the inclusion of both Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.134(b) and § 481.134(c) in the judgment; and (3) telling Applicant that his sentence would be discharged within one year. Applicant also contends that his plea was rendered involuntary because he was not properly admonished by the trial court.

On January 10, 2007, we remanded this application and instructed the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. On remand, trial counsel prepared an affidavit. Based on that affidavit and the record, the trial court concluded that trial counsel was not ineffective and that Applicant's plea was not rendered involuntary. We agree. But we find that the judgment in Applicant's case should not have included references to both Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.134(b) and § 481.134(c), and that Applicant should not have been convicted of a first degree felony. See Young v. State, 14 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Accordingly, we grant relief on other grounds. The judgment in cause number 24025A-422 in the 422nd Judicial District Court of Kaufman County shall be reformed to show that Applicant was convicted of a second, not first, degree felony and punished pursuant to Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.134(c), not § 481.134(b). In all other respects, we deny relief.



Filed: June 27, 2007

Do not publish

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

Related

Young v. State
14 S.W.3d 748 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Ex Parte Young
418 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vega, Ex Parte Cecil Ray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vega-ex-parte-cecil-ray-texcrimapp-2007.