Whitten v. State
Tex. Crim. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2019Williams, Andrew Lee Tex. Crim. App.
- 2015Click, Marcus Edward Tex. App.
- 2015Tracy Larance Gordon v. State Tex. App.
- 2012Luckett v. State Tex. App.
- 2009Demetrius Ward v. State Tex. App.
- 2008Furmon Davis, IV v. State Tex. App.
- 2004Michael Shane Gardner v. State Tex. App.
- 2002Florencio Cardenas Jaramillo v. State Tex. App.
- 2002Birdsong v. State Tex. App.
- 2001Ducker v. State Tex. App.
Cites 2 cases
- Walker v. State
- Murray v. State
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Bertwell Elber WHITTEN, III, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges
- Before ODOM, PHILLIPS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ.
Attorneys
- Scott E. Segall, El Paso, for appellant.
- Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty. and Leo B. Garcia, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary, and punishment, enhanced by proof of one prior conviction, was assessed by a jury at twenty years.
Appellant was charged in a multi-count indictment with three burglaries. After the jury was selected the prosecutor read the three charges of burglary in sequence, and after each of the first two appellant announced his plea of not guilty. After the third charge of burglary was read, appellant announced he was pleading guilty. This apparently took the court by surprise. The jury was removed so that appellant could be admonished pursuant to Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P. before his guilty plea was accepted by the court. In admonishing appellant there was a complete failure to inform him of the punishment range affixed to the offense. Appellant complains of this fact in his first ground of error.
The State argues that appellant was adequately informed of the punishment range because he was present during the jury selection process, at which the prosecutor informed the prospective jurors of the applicable punishment range. That was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Murray v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 561 S.W.2d 821, the Court held:
“The statute provides that it is the trial court which must admonish the accused of the range of punishment attached to the offense. The statute is mandatory: It does not allow the defense attorney, or the prosecutor, or the clerk of the court, or anyone but the judge himself, to admonish the accused of the range of punishment.”
This case is controlled by Murray v. State, supra, and Walker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 524 S.W.2d 712.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Before the Court en banc.