Court Opinion

ID: 9776715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:42:50.438989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:41.743371
License: Public Domain

*174ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority that the admonishment given appellant reflects “sufficient compliance” with Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P. As we stated in Rogers v. State, 479 S.W.2d 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the admonishment cannot be supplied by inference, intendment or presumption. It appears to me that is exactly what the majority does here today. The fact remains that no inquiry was made of appellant as to whether or not he was pleading guilty because of any persuasion, or delusive hope of pardon. The statute is too plainly worded to misconstrue. To comply with it places a very small burden on the trial judge. If we bend a little today, where do we draw the line as to what does, in fact, constitute “sufficient compliance” ? See Crocker v. State, 485 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and Jefferson v. State, 486 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause.
I respectfully dissent.
ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent.