Court Opinion

ID: 9768873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:53:33.903406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:47.878890
License: Public Domain

BERCHELMANN, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. I believe this Court’s opinion in Johnson v. State, 722 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), provides the correct process of appellate review for cases in which a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere and appeals pursuant to an erroneous pretrial ruling. Presiding Judge McCormick, writing for the majority therein, stated:
if the guilty plea or plea of nolo conten-dere is supported by evidence as required by Art. 1.15 [Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann.], which is independent of the judicial confession and the tainted evidence, then any erroneous ruling on an appealable pretrial motion does not vitiate the conviction. Id., 722 S.W.2d at 423-24.
Johnson, was not affected by nor even addressed in Kraft v. State, 762 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), for Kraft dealt with a misdemeanor plea. I am not persuaded that Kraft should apply to felony convictions. The nature of the record is different in a felony plea conviction. Article 1.15 *801Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. requires the State to produce evidence other than the mere plea to prove the elements of a felony offense. This distinction makes the review process different when dealing with pretrial rulings on guilty or nolo contendere pleas.
Furthermore, I simply do not agree that the rationale in Johnson “thwarts the purpose” of Art. 44.02 Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. McKenna, majority op. at 800. Nor am I persuaded that Art. 44.02 supports the majority’s decision to abandon Johnson for review of felony plea cases.
I would, therefore, overrule Kraft to the extent that it conflicts with Johnson. Because the majority does just the opposite, I respectfully dissent.