Johnson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 10, 1973

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1973-10-10

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1975

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"I am constantly amazed at the meaningless verbiage bandied about by trial judges in attempting to accept pleas of guilty. If the applicable statute were unclear or ambiguous, it might be understandable. However, I cannot condone a violation of a statute so clearly stated as Art. 26.13, V.A.C.C.P."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Bosworth v. State

Relies on Mitchell v. State · Espinosa v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-10-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ROBERTS, Judge

¶1(dissenting).

¶2Once again I am forced to disassociate myself from the majority on an issue which is so easily resolvable that it should not be before this appellate court in the first place.

¶3I am constantly amazed at the meaningless verbiage bandied about by trial judges in attempting to accept pleas of guilty. If the applicable statute were unclear or ambiguous, it might be understandable. However, I cannot condone a violation of a statute so clearly stated as Art. 26.13, V. A.C.C.P. I dissent. See the dissenting opinions in Espinosa v. State, 493 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and Mitchell v. State, 493 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).

ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent.