Court Opinion

ID: 9683304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:26:18.713732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:46.985331
License: Public Domain

WARREN, Justice,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur. The trial judge could have deferred adjudication of guilt under art. 42.12, sec. 3d(a), before he found appellant guilty. Under the circumstances however, the appellant’s expectation of such a determination was so unreasonable as to render it nonexistent. But for the serious discussions of probation during the proceedings, which reinforced rather than dispelled appellant’s expectation, I would affirm.
I am reluctant to add additional admonishments to the trial judge’s already long list. However, where a defendant is statutorily ineligible for probation and his counsel argues for, or presents evidence in support thereof, the law should require the trial judge to make appropriate admonishments. See Ramirez v. State, 655 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no pet. history).