Court Opinion

ID: 9772530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:20:53.798156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:45.135247
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
These are appeals from convictions for delivery of marihuana (62,924) and delivery of cocaine (62,926). On original submission both convictions were set aside. It was held that the admonishment at the guilty plea in the marihuana case did not meet the standards of Art. 26.13(a)(1) and (c), Y.A.C. C.P. The indictment in the cocaine case was held fundamentally defective.
We first reconsider the marihuana case. Art. 26.13, supra, provides in relevant part:
“(a) Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of:
“(1) the range of the punishment attached to the offense;
[[Image here]]
“(c) In admonishing the defendant as herein provided, substantial compliance by the court is sufficient, unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court.”
*478Appellant does not contend that the record affirmatively shows he was unaware of the consequences of his plea or that he was misled or harmed by the court’s admonishment on the range of punishment. His contention, sustained on original submission, is that the erroneous statement of the punishment range did not constitute “substantial compliance.”
On rehearing the State argues our original opinion drew too sharp a line between compliance and non-compliance, and held that any inaccurate statement of the punishment range is not substantial compliance. The State is correct that there is a large gray area between letter-perfect compliance and total failure to admonish on the range of punishment. Here, the trial court stated the correct minimum punishment, but announced an excessive maximum. The jury, however, was charged on the proper range of punishment, and the punishment assessed was within that range. In this case, unlike Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335, appellant did “receive an admonishment with respect to punishment, although not a complete one,” which, under McAtee, “is a prima facie showing of a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty.” On reconsideration we are of the opinion that substantial compliance with Art. 26.13, V.A. C.C.P., has been shown, and the motion for rehearing will be granted in cause 62924.
We now turn to the cocaine ease, in which we held the indictment fundamentally defective. Overlooked by the briefs on both sides and by the Court, but pointed out on rehearing, was the decision in Bishop v. State, 568 S.W.2d 136. That case held that an indictment under the Controlled Substances Act for delivery of cocaine was not fundamentally defective for failure to identify the substance other than as “cocaine,” and that cocaine although not expressly listed as a controlled substance in the Act, was included by necessary implication of the language in Art. 4476-15, Sec. 4.02(b)(3)(D), V.A.C.S. We there reasoned:
“Appellant’s contention overlooks the provisions of Article 4476-15, Section 2.04, V.A.C.S. which provides that Schedule II substances shall consist of any of the following substances, however, produced:
“ ‘(4) Coca leaves and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of coca leaves, and any salt, compound, derivative or preparation thereof which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of these substances, but not including decocainized coca leaves or extractions which do not contain cocaine or ecgoine.’
“There is a similar definition contained in Section 4.02(b)(3)(D) placing cocaine in Penalty Group I of the Controlled Substances Act.
“Where this definition specifically includes any compound or derivative of coca leaves but excludes decocainized coca leaves or extractions which do not contain cocaine there is a necessary implication in the definition that cocaine is a derivative of or preparation from, coca leaves. This inference is strengthened by the prior provision of Article 725b, V.A. P.C. (1925) which was the predecessor of the Texas Controlled Substances Act where coca leaves were defined as including ‘cocaine and any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation or coca leaves which do not contain cocaine....’”
On original submission we relied on Crowl v. State, 611 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). The decision in that case, in turn, was based on Ex parte Wilson, 588 S.W.2d 905, which firmly established the rule for pleadings in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, Art. 4476-15, V.A.C.S. In Wilson we explicitly overruled several earlier cases, and stated the controlling rule:
“To state the rule generally, we hold that in a prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act for the manufacture, delivery, or possession of a substance not specifically named in a penalty group but which is otherwise described in a penalty group (for example, an isomer of methamphetamine), such description is an essential element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment in order to state an offense.” (Emphasis added.)
*479Bishop v. State, supra, which acknowledged that cocaine is not specifically named as a controlled substance and concluded it is a controlled substance by implication from the statutory language, is in conflict with this rule. Thus, Bishop, a panel opinion, was overruled sub silentio in Wilson, an en banc decision that expressly overruled several other decisions in conflict with the rule quoted above. We therefore adhere to our decision on original submission that the indictment in this case is fundamentally defective.
In cause 62924 the motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment is affirmed.1 In cause 62926 the motion for rehearing is denied.
ONION, P. J., ROBERTS and CLINTON, JJ., dissent in No. 62924.
McCORMICK, J., dissents in No. 62926.

. The other ground of error in cause 62924, on effective assistance of counsel, was overruled in the opinion on original submission.