Court Opinion

ID: 9775636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:05:30.786875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:29.852122
License: Public Domain

*498ONION, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides :
“If the defendant pleads guilty, or enters a plea of nolo contendere, he shall be admonished by the court of the consequences; and neither of such pleas shall be received unless it plainly appears that he is mentally competent, and is uninfluenced by any consideration of fear, or by any persuasion, or delusive hope of pardon, prompting him to confess his guilt.”
In his only contention on direct appeal appellant complains that the trial court erred in not complying with the statute by inquiring whether his guilty pleas were prompted by any consideration of fear and persuasion.
The record reflects that while the court inquired in each case as to whether “any threat” had been made or whether “any promise” had been given to cause the appellant to enter his guilty pleas, there was no inquiry with regard to “fear” and “persuasion.” It is clear that the statutory terms of “fear” and “persuasion” are considerably broader than the terms “threat” or “promise.”
Although this court even as presently constituted had for many years held the provisions of Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., mandatory, see Ex parte Chavez, 482 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the court in Espinosa v. State, 493 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), and Mitchell v. State, 493 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), held that the court in a felony case no longer needed to inquire whether a guilty plea was prompted by a “delusive hope of pardon.” See also Higginbotham v. State, 497 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
The majority in Espinosa and Mitchell did not explain how they could give less weight to “delusive hope of pardon” than “any consideration of fear” or “any persuasion” found in the same sentence of the mandatory statute. Apparently, however, they, at least for a time, looked upon an inquiry as to “fear” and “persuasion” as essential to satisfy the “minimal requirements” or reflect a “minimal compliance” with the statute.
For example, in Harris v. State, 500 S. W.2d 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the majority speaking through Judge Morrison held that a mere inquiry as to whether the plea was voluntary was insufficient, but that the “minimal requirements” of Article 26.13, supra, as to consideration of fear or persuasion “must be inquired into and appear of record.”
In Heathcock v. State, 494 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the conviction was reversed, the court’s opinion being by Judge Morrison. The opinion noted that no inquiry as to “promise” or “persuasion” was made and stated, “We have concluded that the admonition with this omission fails to meet the requirements of the statute.”
In Martinez v. State, 494 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the conviction was reversed. Judge Morrison, writing the opinion, observed that the trial court had no inquiry as to “force,” “fear,” “promise” or “persuasion.”
In Mayse and Ross v. State, 494 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the majority speaking through Judge Odom began to inch away from even the so-called “minimal requirements” established by the majority. The opinion there held the inquiry as to whether the guilty plea was prompted by any force or coercion or promise was sufficient to comply with the statute. In a dissenting opinion Judge Roberts observed there was an absolute void as to an inquiry concerning whether any persuasion, fear or delusive hope of pardon as required by the mandatory statute. He added, “Trial judges are now put on notice that they need not comply with Article 26.13, V.A. C.C.P. So long as any sloppy effort is put forth in accepting a guilty plea, the majority will accept it as ‘sufficient compliance’.”
It became clear from these cases that the majority had added “force” and “promise” *499to the statute while eliminating “delusive hope of pardon.” Nevertheless, it appeared on occasions, with some lapses, that the majority was still requiring inquiry as to “fear” and “persuasion.” 1
In Ex parte Scott, 505 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), an opinion by Judge Douglas, the conviction was reversed for the failure to ascertain whether the guilty plea was “by reason of fear or persuasion.” See also Ex parte Dickerson, 508 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
In Bosworth v. State, 510 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), the necessity of an inquiry as to “persuasion” was eliminated despite the earlier decision. In a dissenting opinion in Bosworth this writer wrote, “One is left to wonder if any inquiry as to ‘fear’ is still required or whether it is also gone with the wind.”
In Wade v. State, 511 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. Cr.App.1974), the majority of the court held that inquiry was fatally defective because of a failure to inquire if the guilty plea was due to “fear” or “persuasion.” The concurring opinion by Judge Odom, joined by Judge Morrison, agreed to the result reached on the grounds that the record was insufficient to show the defendant “in pleading guilty was uninfluenced by any consideration of fear.”2 Apparently the statutory requirement as to an inquiry as to fear was still alive and well. See also Ex parte Watson, 508 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Pigg v. State, 508 S. W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Cevilla v. State, 515 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
Now confronted in the instant case with an admonishment which did not include either “fear” or “persuasion” and obviously recognizing their past efforts to emasculate the mandatory statute have not been consistent or logical, the majority seizes upon the opinion in Ex parte, Taylor, 522 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), to make another stab at doing the statute in. In Taylor, on original submission, this court held that a failure to comply with Article 26.13, supra, could not be raised by collateral attack, overruling numerous cases to the contrary. The opinion clearly stated, “By our holding today, we do not in any way diminish the requirement of complying with Article 26.13. . . . ” and added in footnote #2, “Our holding does not apply to cases on appeal.”
Despite such language, the majority in Williams v. State, 522 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. Cr.App.) (this day delivered), advanced the theory that Taylor supported the non-review on direct appeal of a violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 26.13, supra, if it was unassigned error. In the instant case the majority has sought to extend the so-called Taylor-Williams rule to situations where the claimed violation of the statute is raised by a ground of error in the appellate brief filed in the trial court in accordance with Article 40.-09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and holds that the failure of the trial court to fully 3 comply with the statute, even if such failure is supported by the record, is not reviewable unless there is a showing of prejudice or harm and the record reflects that there was an objection at the time of the plea or by motion for new trial.
This new approach may not last any longer than the majority’s “substantial compliance” approach, which was a label for a conclusion, not a test to be applied, or the semicolon approach advanced in *500Cameron v. State, 508 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. Cr.App.1974) (Concurring Opinion).
For the reasons stated, I must vigorously dissent. See Taylor v. State, supra (Dissenting Opinion on Motion for Rehearing); Williams v. State, supra (Dissenting Opinion); Tellez v. State, 522 S.W.2d 500 (Tex.Cr.App.) (Dissenting Opinion); Bosworth v. State, 510 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (Dissenting Opinion).
ROBERTS, J., joins in this dissent.

. See, i. e., Johnson v. State, 500 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).

. This concurrence noted that the dissenting opinion by Judge Douglas would find the single question “Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty and for no other reason?” sufficient to determine whether a defendant is uninfluenced by any consideration of fear or persuasion of delusive hope of pardon. This approach was rejected by the concurrence.

.In light of other earlier opinions of the majority, one is left to wonder the meaning of the trial court “fully” complying with the mandatory statute.