Court Opinion

ID: 9763267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:39:51.878339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:40.294943
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
In Alvarez v. State, 536 S.W.2d 357, 364 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) the Court held:
“We perceive no reason why an accused who changes his plea from guilty to not guilty on retrial should be able at the same time to hold the State to the punishment sought or secured at the first trial.”
Although appellant here did not change his plea to not guilty, he did reject on retrial the plea bargain of the first trial. The same principle as that announced in Alvarez would apply, as was stated in Bouie v. State, 565 S.W.2d 543, 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1978):
“If a defendant withdraws on retrial from a bargain obtained at the first trial, an increased punishment would be a legitimate response of the State to the defendant’s rejection of that agreement.
This is based on the teaching of Bordenkircher v. Hayes, [434 U.S. 357, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)].”
Appellant personally testified that he rejected the plea bargain. Having done so, he should not be allowed to complain about the consequences.
W.C. DAVIS, J., joins this opinion.