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 faced three indictments: two for aggravated sexual assaults of children and one for indecency with a third child. He did not waive his right to trial by jury. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.07, �2(b), he “filed his sworn motion for probation before the trial,” and thus the same statute required that “the punishment be assessed by the . . . jury.” He pleaded guilty to the indictments. In arraigning the appellant, the court admonished him of the ranges of punishment attached to the offenses. It did not give him the second or third admonitions required by Article 26.13 because, a jury being empaneled to assess punishment after the plea, there was no plea-bargain agreement. It did not give him the fourth admonition, apparently because there is no suggestion that the appellant was not a citizen of the United States. The court also made some excellent inquiries to carry out its responsibility to reject a plea of guilty if it did not appear that the appellant was mentally competent and that his plea was free and voluntary. But the court neglected to admonish the appellant on the registration requirements for convicted sex offenders. The jury found the appellant guilty and assessed punishments of 75 years’ imprisonment in each case of aggravated sexual assault and 20 years in the indecency case. On appeal he complained of the failure of the court to give him the sex-offender-registration admonition. The court of appeals held that the error was harmless. HOLDING:Affirmed. “The question for us to decide in applying Rule 44.2(b) to the failure to give an admonition is, considering the record as a whole, do we have a fair assurance that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty would not have changed had the court admonished him?” The defense relied on the registration requirement as part of the appellant’s case to have the jury recommend a probated sentence. In considering the effect of the court’s error on the appellant’s decision to plead guilty, the court also considers the strength of the evidence of guilt. The court notes that the evidence includes a handwritten confession and a videotape of the appellant abusing the victims. The court concludes that the error was harmless. OPINION:Womack, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Price, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Hervey, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Johnson and Keasler, JJ., joined. CONCURRENCE:Hervey, J. “In applying the Rule 44.2(b) harm analysis in this case, I would hold that it is dispositive that the record reflects that, when he pled guilty, appellant knew about the sex-offender-registration requirement as shown by his reliance on this requirement as part of a strategy to persuade his jury to recommend probation. . . .”

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?


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.