Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant argues his conviction is void because the trial court did not obtain an oral plea from him or otherwise failed to interact with him personally, thus rendering his guilty plea involuntary. HOLDING:Affirmed. Relying on Shields v. State, 608 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980), the appellate court concluded that “[Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 27.13 is complied with, regardless of who actually speaks, so long as it occurs in open court, in the presence of the defendant, who acknowledges the plea as his.” The court does not hold that Shields may be construed so broadly. Pursuant to Shields, any complaint arguing deviation from Article 27.13 should be evaluated under the particular facts of that case to determine whether the trial court complied with the applicable law. Here, the court concludes the appellate court did just that. Contrary to appellant’s argument, the statute does not require an oral plea. All the facts point to appellant’s voluntary desire to plead guilty: appellant was present, the plea was entered in open court by appellant, albeit through his bilingual attorney. That is all the statute requires. The court states, “[a]s we reasoned in Shields, however, the better practice is to inquire of the defendant personally what his plea is. 608 S.W.2d at 927. But, as Shields instructs and the facts bear out here, appellant had ample opportunity to make known, subsequently, and with the aid of an interpreter, his appellate complaint that his plea was involuntary due to a language barrier. With the facts as they are, including the written acknowledgments, waivers, and stipulations, we cannot say that appellant’s conviction is invalid because the trial court did not secure an oral plea, and consequently, his plea was involuntary. Although we find its reasoning unnecessarily broad, the appellate court did not err because the trial court complied with the law.” OPINION:Holcomb, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, and, Cochran, JJ, joined. Womack, J., concurred in the result.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.