Court Opinion

ID: 9775602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:04:37.165266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:29.276187
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
The real question presented by this appeal is simply whether a trial court may substitute or use a written form, in part or in whole, to conform with the requirements of Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
While in my humble opinion the better practice would have been to have the judge inquire personally of the appellant in open court as to all the requirements of Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., I deem the procedure here utilized sufficient to reflect a compliance with Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. For this reason I concur in the result by the majority.
Further, I agree that Toombs v. State, 514 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), should be overruled. In Toombs the transcription of the court reporter’s notes does not reflect that the court admonished the defendant of the range of punishment. The transcription did reflect the court inquired as to the defendant’s insanity, whether his guilty plea was prompted by any consideration of fear, any persuasion, or whether the appellant had been threatened or promised anything to plead guilty, etc. It is observed that the transcription of the court reporter’s notes reflects that the defense counsel in response to an inquiry stated, “Yes, your honor, we have been over these same questions a couple of times. And they are on your written admonishment form too. We have been over them too, the written admonishment form.” The court then allowed the case to proceed.
The form found in the Toombs record is entitled “Defendant’s Affidavit of Admonitions” dated and filed the morning of the entry of the guilty plea. It reads as follows:

*487

“I hereby state that:
“1. I do not contend that I am presently insane; nor that I was insane at the time of the commission of the offense.
“2. My plea is entered without any consideration of fear, and I have not been threatened in any manner whatsoever.
“3. My plea is entered without any persuasion and I have been promised nothing for my entering such plea.
“4. My plea is entered without any delusive hope of pardon or parole.
“5. I am entering such plea of guilty because I am guilty of the offense of Theft Over $50 and for no other reason.
/s/ F. G, Shackelford /s/ Robert Toombs Attorney for Defendant Defendant
“This Court, having inquired of the above statements by the Defendant, is satisfied that such statements are true and correct and hereby approves this the Defendant’s Affidavit of Admonitions on this the 19th day of December, 1973.”
The court reversed the Toombs case, holding that an examination of the record revealed no admonition concerning the range of punishment and the affidavit of the nature involved could not be used as a substitute for the trial court’s personal admonishment.1
Upon further reflection and study, I have concluded that while the Toombs affidavit may not be sufficient to reflect the court personally admonished the defendant as to the range of punishment, it should not be interpreted as holding an affidavit or other written instrument can never be used to satisfy the requirements of Article 26.13, supra, that an accused in a felony case be admonished as to the consequences of his plea.
For the reasons stated, I concur.

. Undoubtedly Toombs overruled sub silentio Vavra v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 343 S.W.2d 709 (1961), and Wilson v. State, 456 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), if not other cases. In Vavra the transcription of the court reporter’s notes reflected that the court failed to admonish the defendant as to the range of punishment. Nevertheless, the court found that a pre-trial motion to restrict questioning of the jury panel signed only by defendant’s counsel was sufficient to show the defendant personally knew the possible penalties involved. In Wilson the court did not admonish the defendant as to the range of punishment, but at the hearing on the motion for new trial stated that during the voir dire examination of the jury panel the prospective jurors were told what the possible punishment would be and the defendant was present. Cf. Ex parte Miller, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 235, 332 S.W.2d 720 (1960), where the defendant testified on the witness stand he knew the possible penalties.