Duran v. State

I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the trial court. The majority in the instant case have misconstrued and misapplied procedural rules which were not in existence at the time Appellant in the instant case entered his plea of guilty.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The record in the instant ease more accurately shows that on January 4, 1983, after having been admonished pursuant to Tex. Code CRIm.Proc.Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 and Supp.1993), Appellant entered his plea of guilty to the offense of theft over $200 but less than $750. He additionally entered a plea of true to each of…