Court Opinion

ID: 9641253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:26:29.955902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:36.042478
License: Public Domain

CHARLES W. SEYMORE, Justice,
dissenting.
Appellant was convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison without a single recorded hearing before the trial court. Notwithstanding appellant’s written protests that he believed he was “signing for probation,” the majority relies on barely discernible stamps on the trial court’s docket sheet coupled with appellant’s signature on a discrepant boilerplate form to hold that appellant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty. Because appellant’s plea is involuntary under both state law and the federal constitution, I respectfully dissent.
I. ADEQUACY OF APPELLANT’S BRIEF
The majority suggests that appellant’s state-appointed attorney on appeal failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Majority Opinion at 215-16 (citing Walker v. State, 654 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex.App.-Austin 1983, writ refd)). Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant’s brief to include, in relevant part, a statement of facts pertinent to the issues presented and a clear and concise argument including appropriate citations to authorities. Tex. R.Ajpp. P. 38.1(f), (h).
In the statement of facts, occupying over three pages of his brief, appellant directs the court to numerous discrepancies in the trial court’s form admonishments. In the section of his brief entitled “Argument and Authorities,” appellant states “[i]t is well established that a guilty plea must be freely land (sic) voluntarily entered.” Appellant then cites cases in which courts have found pleas involuntary under both state law and the federal constitution because (1) the plea was based on misinformation or incorrect assurances from the trial court, or (2) the trial court rejected the terms of a plea bargain agreement, entitling the defendant to withdraw a plea.
Texas appellate courts have not directly addressed the question as to whether discrepant form admonishments alone are enough to show a defendant entered a guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Consequently, appellant cites the two lines of cases most closely analogous to the facts at issue. Courts must interpret the briefing requirements liberally and fairly. See Morales v. State, 820 S.W.2d 805, 806 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Davis v. State, 817 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); see also Tex.R.App. P. 38.9 (providing that briefing rules should be construed liberally). Accordingly, I conclude that appellant has sufficiently raised the issue as to whether his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily under both state law and the federal constitution.
*221II. DUE PROCESS STANDARD
If a plea is not entered knowingly and voluntarily, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is void. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). The voluntariness of a plea is determined by considering “all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it,” and must be affirmatively shown in the record. Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742, 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Erroneous information conveyed to a defendant concerning a matter such as probation will render a guilty plea based on the misinformation involuntary. Brown v. State, 943 S.W.2d 35, 42 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Fimberg v. State, 922 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ ref'd).
In order to safeguard the constitutional rights of a defendant entering a guilty plea, the trial court must leave a record “adequate for any review that may be later sought and forestalls the spin-off of collateral proceedings that seek to probe murky memories.” Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (citations omitted). The trial court commits reversible error if the record does not reflect that a defendant fully understands what the plea connotes and the consequences. Id. When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, the proceedings before the trial court are unitary, and there is no separate punishment phase. Carroll v. State, 975 S.W.2d 630, 632 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). In considering whether a plea is voluntary, we examine the record as a whole. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); see Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709; Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (noting that there must be an affirmative showing “spread on the record” that a guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary).
III. ANALYSIS
In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court presented him with a preprinted admonishments form that was improperly executed by his attorney. As a result, appellant claims he mistakenly believed he was “signing for probation,” and the plea was therefore “rendered involuntary.”
A. In the absence of an on-record hearing, does appellant’s signature on a generic admonishments form “affirmatively show” a guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily?
The preprinted admonishments form signed by appellant contained provisions waiving oral admonishments and a court reporter. Consequently, the majority holds that “the burden is on appellant to ensure a sufficient record is presented on appeal to establish error.” Majority Opinion at *6. This holding opens the door to wholesale circumvention of the requirement that the trial court leave a record “adequate for any review that may be later sought.” See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709.

1. Absence of Plea Colloquy

Here, the record does not indicate what inquiries, if any, were made by the trial court to determine whether appellant’s plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Cf. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 239, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (“So far as the record shows, the judge asked no questions of petitioner concerning his plea, and petitioner did not address the court.”). The majority appears to suggest that the trial court has no responsibility to conduct a plea colloquy when a signed preprinted admonishments form contains a provision waiving oral admonishments and a court reporter’s record.
*222Few courts have addressed whether a defendant’s signature on a preprinted admonishments form is enough to “affirmatively show” a plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Under Federal law, the trial court must conduct an on-the-record examination of the defendant. See Fed. R.CRIM.P. 11. Most states have adopted similar procedural safeguards.1 Further, *223although there is some disagreement as to the extent of the inquiry required when a defendant signs standardized forms, courts addressing the issue appear to agree that, at a minimum, the record must indicate the trial court inquired as to whether the defendant understood the forms. See Cooper v. State, 53 Ala.App. 36, 297 So.2d 169, 173 (1973) (rejecting the argument that a preprinted form was sufficient to show a knowing and voluntary plea and holding that there “[m]ust be a personal interrogation by the trial judge and a record made of the defendant’s responses to the judge’s inquiries”); In re Ibarra, 34 Cal.3d 277, 193 Cal.Rptr. 538, 666 P.2d 980, 984-85 (1983) (holding that when a defendant signs a preprinted waiver form, the judge “need only determine whether the defendant had read and understood the contents of the form and discussed them with his attorney”), abrogated by People v. Mosby, 33 Cal.4th 353, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 92 P.3d 841, 844-45 (2004) (applying totality-of-the-cireumstanees test); State v. Arsenault, 897 A.2d 988, 992-93 (N.H.2006) (concluding that a plea colloquy is constitutionally required and a defendant’s signature on acknowledgment and waiver-of-rights form is insufficient to meet due-process standards); see also Dean v. State, 901 S.W.2d 323, 328 (Mo.Ct.App.W.D.1995) (concluding that a defendant must show prejudice if trial court relies on written form and cursory on-record inquiry to determine whether the defendant understood the form); People v. Van Hook, 36 Colo.App. 226, 539 P.2d 507, 508-09 (App.1975) (holding that a printed form signed by the defendant is “no substitute” for the requirement that the trial court personally inquire as to whether the defendant understood his rights and was entering the plea knowingly and voluntarily).
In addition, the same standard — that “the record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show,” the defendant acted intelligently and understandingly — applies to both waivers of the right to counsel and guilty pleas. See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (discussing the standard applicable to waivers of the right to counsel and concluding that the same standard must be applied to determine whether a guilty plea is voluntary). In cases involving waivers of the right to counsel, courts have concluded that a defendant’s signature on a standard, preprinted waiver form is insufficient to show the waiver was entered knowingly and voluntarily. See Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 724, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948) (concluding that the trial court’s cursory examination of the defendant followed by the defendant’s signing of a standard waiver form was inadequate under the circumstances to show a valid waiver); Henderson v. Frank, 155 F.3d 159, 166-67 (3rd Cir.1998) (rejecting the argument that the defendant’s signature on a preprinted waiver form was sufficient to show a valid waiver and noting “[wjhether it be a U.S. District Judge or a U.S. Magistrate Judge in a federal prosecution or a state judge in a state criminal proceeding, the trial judge must conduct a colloquy with the accused to determine *224that the waiver is not only voluntary, but knowing and intelligent”).
Here, the record reflects that appellant signed preprinted admonishments and waiver forms, but it does not reflect even a cursory inquiry as to whether appellant understood the forms. In the absence of any inquiry to shed light on appellant’s understanding, the record does not “affirmatively show” that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.
2. Presumption of Regularity to Court Proceedings
Moreover, to the extent the majority relies on stamps on the docket sheet and conclusory assertions on the waiver and admonishments forms that appellant knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea, the reliance is misplaced. Contrary to the majority’s suggestion otherwise, a reviewing court may not rely on the presumption of regularity to court proceedings to presume a defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. See Majority Opinion at *6 (asserting “we presume recitals in the court documents are correct unless the record affirmatively shows otherwise”).
In cases involving both guilty pleas and waivers of the right to counsel, there must be an affirmative showing that the defendant acted intelligently and voluntarily. See Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709. In Goffney v. State, the Criminal Court of Appeals addressed the question as to whether the “presumption of regularity” applies when the defendant waives his right to counsel. 843 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). In Goff-ney, the defendant waived a record of the proceedings, but the judgment stated the defendant “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.” Id. The Court held that the presumption of regularity did not apply because “[t]he focus of the analysis when a defendant asserts his right of self-representation is not solely on whether there was an actual waiver of the right to counsel, but whether the defendant was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Id. at 585. Similarly, here the focus of the analysis is whether the defendant was aware of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of his plea. See Brady, 397 U.S. at 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463; cf. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 245 & n. 1, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (noting that, although the record stated the defendant appeared in open court with his attorney to enter a plea of guilty, the record did not reflect “what inquiries were made by the arraigning judge to confirm the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily”). Consequently, the trial court’s failure to conduct an on-record inquiry to determine whether appellant had a full understanding of the plea and its consequences violated appellant’s rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and rendered his plea involuntary.
B. If signed waiver and admonishments forms are generally sufficient to affirmatively show a plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, were the forms sufficient in this case?
Even if signed waiver and admonishments forms are generally sufficient to prove a plea was knowing and voluntary, the improper execution of the forms in this case rendered appellant’s plea involuntary. Moreover, the record “affirmatively shows” that appellant was unaware of the consequences of his plea and was misled or harmed by the forms. Therefore, the forms are also insufficient under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Crim. Proc.Code Ann. art. 26.13(c) (providing that substantial compliance in admon*225ishing the defendant is sufficient unless he affirmatively shows he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and was misled or harmed).

1. Discrepancies in the Forms as Applied to Appellant

Before entering the plea, appellant signed a form entitled “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession” and another form entitled “Admonishments.” Both forms were also signed by the trial court, the State’s attorney, and appellant’s attorney. Appellant initialed paragraphs in the admonishments form stating that he understood the admonishments, the applicable punishment range, the consequences of his plea, and that he “freely, knowingly, and voluntarily executed this statement in open court with the consent of and approval of [his] attorney.” The “Waiver of Constitutional Rights” form contained a statement affirming that the trial court admonished the defendant of the consequences of his plea and ascertained that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The admonishments form contained two paragraphs providing that the defendant waived “the right to have the trial court orally admonish me” and “the right to have a court reporter record my plea.” Both paragraphs were initialed by appellant. There is no court reporter’s record of the proceedings.
Appellant’s admonishments form indicates that appellant’s attorney explained the possibility of deferred adjudication pursuant to a nonexistent section 3d under article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.2 A “Motion for Community Supervision” was also filed with the forms the day of the plea. However, appellant asserts, and the State does not dispute, that he was ineligible for probation.3 Oth*226er indications that appellant was misinformed appear on the face of the admonishments form. For example, appellant initialed a provision waiving indictment, but appellant had been indicted months earlier. Appellant also initialed a provision to waive a pre-sentence investigation contrary to a prior agreement to conduct the investigation. Further, the words the “court will permit you to withdraw your plea of guilty or nolo contendere” are underlined on the admonishments form in a paragraph initialed by appellant. This provision applied only if the Court rejected any plea bargain agreement, and thus supports appellant’s claim that he was told he was signing a plea agreement for probation. Because it appears from the record that appellant did not have the benefit of a plea agreement, the provision was inapplicable. In another form labeled “Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal,” also executed the day of the plea, the option indicating that the case before the court “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” was selected and then crossed-out.
As the majority notes, appellant’s PSI report indicates that the State dismissed a charge against appellant for burglary with intent to commit a felony on the same day appellant entered his guilty plea in this case. See Majority Opinion at *2 n. 2. Appellant’s PSI report also contains the following statements:
In a brief interview with the defendant, he advised this Officer he did not want to do this presentence report. He reported his attorney did not tell him the truth pertaining to this. He advised, his attorney told him the Judge would consider given (sic) him probation if he plead guilty.
Before the sentencing hearing but after he entered his plea, appellant filed three hand-written motions: (1) “Motion to Dismiss Court Appointed Counsel and Appoint New Counsel to Act on Behalf of Defendant;” (2) “Motion for Hybrid Representation,” and (3) “Defendant’s Motion to have Written Rulings on all Motions Filed by Defendant.” In appellant’s handwritten motion to dismiss court-appointed counsel, he “declar[ed] under penalty of perjury” that his attorney was “lying to me, telling I’m signing for probation, come to find out it was something different.”
Appellant’s attorney filed a “Motion To Have Official Court Reporter Make a Full Record” that included “all pretrial hearings” and “all sentencing proceedings.” However, the court reporter was not present during appellant’s sentencing hearing.

2. Appellant’s “Heavy Burden”

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows the trial court to make certain admonishments orally or in writing. Tex. Crim. PROC.Code Ann. art. 26.13(c). The majority therefore concludes that the appellant was “properly admonished.” See Majority Opinion at 219.4 Further, because *227appellant signed, the forms after having been “properly admonished,” the majority imposes a “heavy burden” on appellant to prove his plea was involuntary. See id. at 219.
The Fifth Circuit has held that a defendant’s prior attestation of voluntariness at a “Rule 11 hearing” — a hearing held pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — imposes a “heavy burden” on the defendant to show the plea is involuntary in a post-conviction proceeding. U.S. v. Diaz, 733 F.2d 371, 374 (5th Cir.1984); see also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (noting that “solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity”). Texas appellate courts appear to have adopted the “heavy burden” standard. See Thornton v. State, 734 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd) (citing Diaz, 733 F.2d at 373, 374); see also Coronado v. State, 25 S.W.3d 806, 809 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd) (citing Cantu v. State, 988 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd)); Cantu, 988 S.W.2d at 484 (citing Sawyer v. State, 778 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ ref'd); Sawyer, 778 S.W.2d at 543 (citing Thornton, 734 S.W.2d at 113).) However, unlike the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Texas Rules do not expressly require the trial court to admonish the defendant or inquire as to the voluntariness of a guilty plea in an on-record hearing. Compare Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b), 11(g) (providing that the trial court must address the defendant personally in open court and on the record prior to accepting a guilty plea), with Tex.CRIM. PROC.Code Ann. arts. 26.13, 27.13 (providing the court may admonish a defendant in writing and not requiring a record of the plea proceeding). Here, where the trial court relied solely on preprinted form admonishments and failed to conduct an on-record plea hearing, the “heavy burden” standard is inappropriately applied.
Moreover, the “heavy burden” standard arguably conflicts with a line of cases holding that a trial court has a duty to sua sponte withdraw a plea when there is evidence that indicates that plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily.5 See Co*228ronado v. State, 25 S.W.3d 806, 808-09 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd) (noting the trial court must withdraw a plea of guilty when evidence is raised that directly indicates the plea was involuntary); Owens v. State, 836 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1992, no writ) (per curiam) (same).
The “heavy burden” standard also conflicts with the standard specified in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Because the admonishments contained many discrepancies as applied to appellant, the forms represent, at most, “substantial compliance” with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. However, substantial compliance is insufficient if there is an affirmative showing that the defendant was unaware of the consequences of his plea and misled or harmed by the admonishments. Tex.Crim. Proc.Code Ann. art. 26.13(c); Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). The Code of Criminal Procedure does not place a “heavy burden” on the defendant to make this showing. See Tex.Crim. Proc.Code Ann. art. 26.13(c); Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197.

3. Substantial Compliance under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

"When written admonishments contain numerous errors and the record affirmatively shows the defendant suffered harm, the admonishments are not sufficient. See Tex.Grim. Pkog.Code Ann. art. 26.13(c). Here, the State relies solely on written admonishments to prove that appellant’s plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The admonishments form, signed by appellant and approved by appellant’s attorney, the State’s attorney, and the trial court, contains a provision in which appellant waived oral admonishments. The record does not show that the trial court addressed appellant at any time to clarify and correct the discrepancies contained in the written admonishments. Further, the trial court failed to ensure a court reporter’s presence at the sentencing hearing. See Tex.R.App. P. 13.1 (requiring a court reporter to record all proceedings unless excused by agreement of the parties).
In viewing the record as a whole, we are thus presented with uncontroverted evidence that appellant agreed to plea guilty because he thought he was “signing for probation.” Appellant’s assertions are consistent with and supported by numerous discrepancies on the face of the forms filed the day of his plea. Under these circumstances, appellant has affirmatively shown that he was misled by the trial court’s written admonishments and did not understand the consequences of his plea.
IY. CONCLUSION
Because the trial court failed to conduct a plea colloquy, the forms signed by appellant contained numerous discrepancies, and the record reflects appellant’s uncon-troverted assertions he believed he was “signing for probation,” appellant’s plea was involuntary under both state law and the federal constitution. Accordingly, I would sustain appellant’s first issue and *229reverse and remand for further proceedings in the trial court.

. At least thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have adopted procedural rules explicitly requiring the trial court to conduct an on-record plea colloquy: Alabama, Al. R.Crim. P. 14.4(c); Alaska, Alaska R.Crim. P. 11(g); Arizona, Ariz. R.Crim. P. 17.1(d); Arkansas, Ark. R.Crim. P. 24.7; Colorado, Colo. R.Crim. P. 10(d); Connecticut, CT. R.Super. Ct. CR § 39-24; Delaware, De Super. Ct.Crim. P. Rule 11(g); District of Columbia, D.C.Super. Ct.Crim. P. Rule 11(g); Florida, Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(k); Georgia, Ga. St. Unif.Super. Ct. Rule 33.11; Idaho, Idaho Crim. R. 11(c), Id. St. Admin. Rule 27; Illinois, III. St. S.Ct. Rule 402(e); Indiana, In. St. RCRP, Rule 10; Iowa, IA R. 2.8(3); Kansas, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3210(4)(b) (1995);Louisiana, La.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 556.1(D) (2003); Maine, Me. R.Crim. P. ll(c)(f); Maryland, Md. Rules 4-242(c); Massachusetts, Mass. R.Crim. P. 12(a); Michigan, Mich. Ct. R. 6.302(f); Minnesota, Mn.Crim. P.R. 15.09; Missouri, Mo. Criminal Procedure Rule 24.03; Nevada, e.g., Nv St. 8 Dist. Ct. Rule 1.48(i); New Mexico, N.M. R. Dist. Ct. RCRP 5-303(H); North Carolina, N.C. Gen.Stat. Ann. § ISA-1026 (West 2006); North Dakota, N.D. R.Crim. P. 11(e); Pennsylvania, Pa. R.Crim. P. 590(A); South Dakota, S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-7-15 (2006); Tennessee, Tenn. R.Crim. P. 11(g); Utah, Utah Code Ann. § 77-13-4 (1980); Vermont, Vt. R.Crim. P. 11(g); West Virginia, W.Va. R.Crim. P. 11(g); Wyoming, Wyo. R.Crim. P. 11(g).
Courts in at least eight states without explicit procedural rules requiring an on-record colloquy have held that an on-record plea colloquy is nonetheless required. See State v. Vaitogi, 59 Haw. 592, 585 P.2d 1259, 1265 (1978) (“at a minimum, the court should make an affirmative showing by an on-the-record colloquy between the court and the defendant”); Edmonds v. Com., 189 S.W.3d 558, 565 n. 3 (Ky.2006) ("failure to conduct a Boykin hearing on the record constitutes reversible error’’); Nelson v. State, 626 So.2d 121, 126 (Miss.1993) (holding a standardized waiver form and defendant’s attestation in open court that he understood the form insufficient; rather, the court must conduct a face-to-face exchange); State v. Arsenault, 897 A.2d 988, 992 (N.H.2006) (reminding "trial courts that a colloquy is constitutionally required when a defendant pleads guilty"); King v. State, 553 P.2d 529, 534-36 (Okla.Crim.App.1976) (requiring trial court's inquiry into the voluntariness of a defendant’s plea appear on the record); State v. Frazar, 822 A.2d 931, 935 (R.I.2003) (holding that a trial court must conduct an on-the-record examination of the defendant before he enters a plea); State v. Armstrong, 263 S.C. 594, 211 S.E.2d 889, 890 (1975) (determining that the "essence of Boykin was to make the requirements of Rule 11 [of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] applicable to the states”); Wood v. Morris, 87 Wash.2d 501, 554 P.2d 1032, 1037-38 (1976) (noting that the Washington rules concerning pleas were modeled after Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and holding that the rules should be construed the same).
Relevant procedural rules in the remaining states are as follows: California, Cal.Penal Code Ann. §§ 1016-18 (West 1985) (providing that a guilty plea may be entered orally or in writing); Montana, Mont.Code Ann. §§ 46-12-210, 46-16-105 (providing that a defendant must enter a plea in open court but that certain statutory admonishments may be accomplished by a written acknowledgment filed by the defendant); Nebraska, State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879, 883 (1983) (holding in relevant part that the trial court must examine the defendant to determine whether the defendant understood the trial court’s admonishments and noting that the record must establish that there is a factual basis for the plea and the defendant was advised of the range of penalties for the offense charged); New Jersey, N.J. Ct. Rules R. 3:9-2, 9-3 (requiring the trial court to conduct an inquiry of the defendant personally to determine whether the plea is voluntary and specifying that a plea agreement must be disclosed on the record in open court); New York, N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 220.50 (McKinney 2006) (providing that in felony cases a plea must be entered by the defendant orally and in person); Ohio, Oh. Criminal Procedure Rule 11 (c), (f) (providing that the trial court must inquire as to whether the plea was entered voluntarily and specifying that negotiated plea *223agreements must be entered on the record in open court); Oregon, Or.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 135 360, 135.385 (providing that a trial court must address the defendant personally and in open court to determine whether the plea was knowing and voluntary); Virginia, Va. Sup.Ct. Rule 3A:8(b) (providing that a court shall not accept a plea of guilty to a felony without first determining the plea is made voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the charges and consequences of the plea); Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. Ann. § 971.08 & cmt. (West 1998) (providing that the trial court shall address the defendant personally to determine whether the plea is voluntary and commenting that the section is modeled after Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure).

. Paragraph eleven of the preprinted admonishments form was initialed by appellant and expresses, in relevant part, that the provisions of the form "were explained to me in that [the English] language by my attorney.” Paragraph seven of the form, also initialed by appellant, reads as follows:
I understand that if the Court grants me Deferred Adjudication under Article 42.12 Sec.3d(a) V.A.C.C.P. on violation of any condition I may be arrested and detained as provided by law. I further understand that I am then entitled to a hearing limited to a determination by the Court of whether to proceed with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. If the Court determines that I violated a condition of probation, no appeal may be taken from the court’s determination and the Court may assess my punishment within the full range of punishment for this offense. After adjudication of guilt, all proceedings including the assessment of punishment and my right to appeal continue as if adjudication of guilt had not been deferred.
However, there is no section 3d(a) under Article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex.Crim. Proc.Code Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon Supp.2005) (reserving sections 3a to3f by the notation [Blank]).

. The majority suggests that appellant was properly admonished as to deferred adjudication. See Majority Opinion at *8. However, there are three different forms of probation available under article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure: (1) judge ordered community supervision; (2) deferred adjudication probation; and (3) the state boot camp program, or "shock” probation. See Tex.Crim. Proc.Code Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon Supp.2005) The term "probation” is used interchangeably to refer to each form. Rodriguez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 211, 220 (Tex.App.Austin 1997, no pet.). Here, because the admonishments form referenced a nonexistent section of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning deferred adjudication, but a "motion for community supervision” was filed with the trial court, it is unclear for which form of probation appellant was admonished. Driving while intoxicated with a child passenger is a state jail felony punishable under section 12.35 of the Texas Penal Code. Tex. Pen.Code Ann. §§ 12.35, 49.045(b). Appellant was therefore ineligible for judge ordered community supervision and the state boot *226camp program. See Tex.Crim. Proc.Code Ann. art. 42.12 §§ 3(e)(2), 8(e)(3).

. The admonishments specified under the Code of Criminal Procedure are not constitutionally required. See Aguirre-Mata, 125 S.W.3d at 475 (noting that "Boykin” did not specifically set out what due process requires to be “spread on the record”). By focusing solely on whether technical compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure was achieved, the majority perverts the due process inquiry. No rote recitation is sufficient in every case to satisfy due process requirements; rather, the focus of the due process inquiry is on the particular defendant’s understanding of the plea and its consequences. See id; see also McCarthy, 394 U.S. at 467 n. 20, 89 S.Ct. 1166 (noting that the nature of the plea inquiry will necessarily vary from case to case and "matters of reality, not mere ritual should be controlling”). Providing a defendant with virtual copies from the Code of Criminal Procedure does not show *227that the defendant has an understanding of the law as it applies to him. By relieving the trial court of any responsibility to inquire as to the defendant's understanding, the majority threatens one of the last remaining bulwarks protecting constitutional rights against systemic pressures on a defendant to enter a guilty plea. A system which allows an individual to be imprisoned solely on the basis of a signature on misleading and inaccurate government forms is offensive to fundamental notions of justice. The majority not only sanctions this practice, but also effectively immunizes such convictions from meaningful review. Cf. McCarthy, 394 U.S. at 468, 89 S.Ct. 1166 (commenting on the subjective nature of the inquiry, and noting that a defendant will "rarely, if ever” be able to corroborate his own allegations that he did not understand the nature of the charge).

. The majority states that "a trial judge is not required to sua sponte withdraw a defendant’s guilty plea, even if evidence is brought to the judge’s attention making the defendant’s innocence evident.” See Majority Opinion at 219. However, evidence that a defendant is not guilty is not necessarily also evidence that a guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-39, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (declining to hold that a trial court should have rejected a defendant’s guilty plea to a lesser-included offense because the defendant maintained his innocence and noting that "prohibitions against involuntary or unintelligent pleas should not be relaxed, but neither should an exercise in arid logic render these constitutional guarantees counterproductive and put in jeopardy the very human values they were meant to preserve”).
In order to ensure that a guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, Texas courts formerly had an affirmative duty to sua *228sponte withdraw a guilty plea entered before the court or jury when the evidence reasonably and fairly raised an issue concerning the accused’s innocence. See Griffin v. State, 703 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, 682 (1978). In Moon, the Court of Criminal Appeals abrogated the requirement that a trial court sua sponte withdraw a guilty plea entered before the court when evidence raises a question concerning the defendant’s innocence. 572 S.W.2d at 681. However, courts have held Moon inapplicable in cases when the evidence raised directly concerns the voluntariness of the plea. Coronado v. State, 25 S.W.3d 806, 808-09 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. ref'd) (citing Owens v. State, 836 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, no writ) (per curiam)).