Case Name: Ladderick Donnell WILCOX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2000-05-03
Citations: 18 S.W.3d 636
Docket Number: No. 1079-99
Parties: Ladderick Donnell WILCOX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
Judges: in which McCORMICK, P.J., and MEYERS and KEASLER, J.J., joined.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 18
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Ladderick Donnell WILCOX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
No. 1079-99.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
May 3, 2000.
Michael Goains, Cameron, for appellant.
Jeffrey L. Van Horn, Asst. State Atty., Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

Opinion:
PRICE, J.,
delivered a concurring opinion,
in which McCORMICK, P.J., and MEYERS and KEASLER, J.J., joined.
I write separately to emphasize my displeasure with the actions taken by the trial court here. I cannot condone its act of dismissing the jury and sitting as fact-finder for the punishment evidence. When a defendant pleads guilty in front of a jury, the trial is not bifurcated, but rather is a unitary trial asking that the fact-finder determine punishment only — not guilt. See Carroll v. State, 975 S.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). Trial courts should not attempt to circumvent the State's statutory right to refuse consent to a defendant's jury waiver by dismissing the jury before it has performed its only objective in a guilty plea case: determining punishment.
With these thoughts, I concur in the improvident grant of the State's petition.