Legal Opinion

High v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 11, 1998No. 1270-97PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

2Per curiam

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to confinement for sixty years. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction because the trial court did not admonish appellant of the consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to Article 26.13(a)(1), V.A.C.C.P. High v. State, 962 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997). It held that under Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), a complete failure to admonish a defendant on the range of punishment for an offense does not constitute substantial compliance under Art.…

3Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cain v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
  2. Ex Parte McAteeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
  3. Morales v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1994
  4. High v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1997

4Cited by59 opinions

  1. Aguirre-Mata v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
  2. Hernandez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2006
  3. In the Matter of D.I.B.Texas Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Rachuig v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)1998
  5. Wilson v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2001

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API