Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

576 S.W.2d 824

Carrillo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 29, 1978

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1978-11-29

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1992

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"(a) Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of: "(1) the range of punishment attached to the offense ..."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Whitten v. State, Stewart v. State

Relies on Kelley v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-11-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*825OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

¶2On June 2, 1978, appellant waived his right to trial by jury and entered pleas of guilty to two separate indictments, each of which charged him with burglary of a vehicle. Punishment in each case was assessed at imprisonment for three years.

¶3Retained counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeals are wholly frivolous. Upon our examination of the records, however, we have found error which calls for reversal and which shall be considered as unassigned error in the interest of justice under Article 40.09(13), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

¶4The certificate of the court reporter found in the records approved by the trial judge states, “ . . . the above and foregoing pages . . . constitute a full, true, accurate and complete transcript of the Statement of Facts, of all proceedings had in” the instant causes. An examination of the transcription reveals that the trial court totally failed to give any admonishment as required by Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. See Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 748, ch. 280, sec. 1, effective August 29, 1977, and in effect at the time appellant’s guilty pleas were taken. Although dealing with Article 26.13, supra (Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 909, ch. 341, sec. 3, effective June 19, 1975), prior to the 1977 amendment of that statute, the case of Kelley v. State, 573 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App., 1978 on rehearing), controls the disposition of the instant cases.

¶5In the instant cases there is no showing that appellant was advised of the range of punishment attached to the offense of burglary of a vehicle, nor was it determined that the pleas were freely and voluntarily made, etc., as required by Article 26.13, supra. Under these circumstances, we are not faced with a question of whether there was substantial compliance with that statute, but with a situation of no compliance.

¶6The judgments are reversed and the causes are remanded.

/576/sw2d/824 · .json · Public domain