Case Name: Robert Frank MAYSE and Reagan R. Ross, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1973-05-16
Citations: 494 S.W.2d 914
Docket Number: No. 46777
Parties: Robert Frank MAYSE and Reagan R. Ross, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: ONION, P. J., joins in the dissent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 494
Pages: 914–916

Head Matter:
Robert Frank MAYSE and Reagan R. Ross, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 46777.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 16, 1973.
Rehearing Denied June 13, 1973.
John Montford, Lubbock, for appellants.
Joe Smith, Dist. Atty., Seminole, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
ODOM, Judge.
This appeal is from convictions for the offense of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: morphine. Punishment was assessed each appellant, upon his plea of guilty, at eight years.
Two grounds of error are urged. One of the contentions is that "The evidence is insufficient to support the appellants' convictions since there is no evidence of record that the drug morphine is a narcotic drug." Such contention is without merit.
Article 725b, Sec. 1(12), Vernon's Ann. P.C., states that: " 'Opium' includes morphine, . . ." and Article 725b, Sec. 1 (14), supra, states that: "'Narcotic drugs' means coca leaves, opium, . . ." The appellants' pleas of guilty admitted possession of morphine.
Finally, appellants contend that "The trial court's admonition failed to inquire of the defendants whether or not the defendants' pleas were uninfluenced first, by any persuasion; second, by any fear; and, third, by any delusive hope of pardon
The admonitions herein have been reviewed. As to appellants' specific contentions, we quote from the record:
"THE COURT: Now, are either of you pleading guilty because of any force or coercion upon you to make you plead guilty ?
MR. MAYSE: No, sir.
MR. ROSS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Has anyone made any promises to you, to either one of you, to get you to plead guilty?
MR. MAYSE: No, sir.
MR. ROSS: No, sir."
Although the exact wording of Article 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., was not stated by the trial judge, we conclude that the admonishment given was sufficient compliance with the statute. See, Mitchell v. State, 493 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Espinosa v. State, 493 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
There being no reversible error, the judgments are affirmed.