From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Jan 26, 2000
10 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App. 2000)

Summary

holding alleged error that trial court failed to sua sponte withdraw guilty plea not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Nolly v. State

Opinion

No. 10-98-139-CR

Filed January 26, 2000

Appeal from the 54th District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Bob Burdette, J., Trial Court # 96-682-C.

Affirmed.

Kathryn J. Gilliam, Beard Kultgen, Waco, TX, for Appellant.

John W. Segrest, Criminal District Attorney, Waco, TX, for Appellee.

Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, Justice GRAY.


OPINION


Appellant Patrick Keith Williams pleaded guilty before a jury to aggravated assault, and the jury assessed punishment at twelve years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. See TEX. PENAL. CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (Vernon 1994). Williams's sole issue on appeal claims that the trial court erred when it failed to sua sponte withdraw his guilty plea after the testimony allegedly raised an issue concerning his innocence.

If a defendant enters a plea of guilty before a jury and evidence is introduced which "reasonably and fairly raises [an] issue" concerning his innocence, the trial court has a duty to sua sponte withdraw the defendant's guilty plea and enter a not guilty plea. Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307, 322 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988); Griffin v. State, 703 S.W.2d 193, 195 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (op. on reh'g); Hoffman v. State, 922 S.W.2d 663, 673 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, pet. ref'd).

This rule is a vital safeguard which operates to protect the accused from any outside pressure which could result in an innocent party being convicted, upon his own plea of guilty, of a crime he did not commit . . . . [and] to assure the voluntary nature of the plea.

Griffin, 703 S.W.2d at 195.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held that, "[e]xcept for complaints involving fundamental constitutional systemic requirements . . ., all other complaints . . . are waived by failure to comply with Rule 33.1." Ibarra v. State, No. 72,974, slip op. at 16, 1999 WL 956173, at *7 (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 20, 1999). The United States Supreme Court has classified these "fundamental" requirements "as those which, when denied, `defy analysis by "harmless error" standards.'" Foster v. State, No. 10-99-041-CR, slip op. at 3, 1999 WL 1243847, at *1 (Tex.App. Waco Dec. 22, 1999, no pet. h.) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1265, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)).

A question concerning the voluntariness of a guilty plea does not fall within the definition of such "fundamental" requirements. See Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). In Cain, the Court wrote:

Except for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as "structural," no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis.

Id. (emphasis added). Because a challenge to the voluntariness of a guilty plea does not implicate one of the "fundamental" requirements identified by the Supreme Court, an appellant must properly preserve such a complaint for appellate review. See Foster, slip op. at 3-4, 1999 WL 1243847, at *2; see also Ibarra, slip op. at 16, 1999 WL 956173, at *7.

Williams's sole complaint on appeal relates to the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Griffin, 703 S.W.2d at 195. Thus, it must be properly preserved for appellate review in accordance with Rule 33.1. See Foster, slip op. at 3-4, 1999 WL 1243847, at *2; see also Ibarra, slip op. at 16, 1999 WL 956173, at *7. Williams failed to preserve this issue by objection, request, or in a timely presented motion for new trial. See TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, we overrule his sole issue.

We affirm the judgment.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Jan 26, 2000
10 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App. 2000)

holding alleged error that trial court failed to sua sponte withdraw guilty plea not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Nolly v. State

concluding that appellant failed to preserve a complaint that the trial court did not sua sponte withdraw his guilty plea because appellant failed to properly preserve the issue "by objection, request, or in a timely presented motion for new trial"

Summary of this case from Diaz v. State

rejecting appellant's complaint about voluntariness of his guilty plea because he did not "preserve this issue by objection, request, or in a timely presented motion for new trial"

Summary of this case from Deluna v. State

In Williams, the Waco court recognized the general rule (although quoting the pre- Moon formulation) that "the trial court has a duty to sua sponte withdraw the defendant's guilty plea and enter a not guilty plea" when evidence is introduced which "reasonably and fairly raises [an] issue" concerning the defendant's innocence.

Summary of this case from Aldrich v. State
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK KEITH WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco

Date published: Jan 26, 2000

Citations

10 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Mendez v. State

As a result of that failure, any error is waived. We note that this very issue has been decided recently by…

Aldrich v. State

Under these circumstances, we find appellant waived error, if any. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a); Williams v.…