Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A Bexar County grand jury presented an indictment that charged appellant with two second-degree felonies: sexual assault (Count I) and indecency with a child (Count II). For purposes of punishment enhancement, the indictment also alleged in three separate paragraphs that appellant had three prior felony convictions. On direct appeal, the appellant argued that, given his plea of nolo contendere to Count I of the indictment, which alleged a sexual assault, and given his plea of “true” to the second enhancement paragraph, which alleged a prior conviction for an out-of-state offense whose elements were substantially similar to sexual assault, the trial court was required by Texas Penal Code 12.42(c)(2) to sentence him to imprisonment for life. The court of appeals held that appellant’s negotiated plea of nolo contendere was involuntary and that his sentence was illegal. HOLDING:The court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and affirms the judgment of the trial court. The state may, with the permission of the trial court, “dismiss, waive or abandon a portion of the indictment.” Ex parte Preston, 833 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). After reviewing the record, the court concludes that that is exactly what happened in this case. At the pretrial hearing, the state abandoned, with the trial court’s permission, that portion of the indictment’s second enhancement paragraph that exposed appellant to the possibility of an automatic life sentence. The court reporter’s record of the hearing makes it clear that everyone in the courtroom understood what the state was doing. It is clear that appellant would not have pleaded “true” to the second enhancement paragraph if the state had not abandoned the portion of that paragraph that exposed him to the possibility of an automatic life sentence, the court finds. In light of the state’s abandonment, the appellant’s 25-year prison sentence was not unlawful. Furthermore, in light of the state’s abandonment, the trial court’s admonishment concerning the range of punishment was not incorrect, and, therefore, the appellant’s plea was not involuntary. OPINION:Holcomb, J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous court.

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.