Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ex Parte Williams

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 19, 1986No. 69534Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOnion, Presiding Judge

The applicant is entitled to the relief he seeks, but the majority is not entitled to foul up the admonishment procedures under Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P., in felony cases in an attempt to reach the right result.

This is not an admonishment “as to the range of punishment” case and should not be treated as such. In doing so the majority only muddies the legal waters and adds to the confusion as to just what the law requires.

The voluntary character of the guilty plea involved was lacking due to the improper involvement of the trial judge in a plea bargaining situation, the direct…

2Cases cited57 opinions

  1. McNew v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
  2. Ex Parte BurnsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
  3. Harvey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
  4. Ex Parte EvansCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  5. Nathaniel Brown v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967

52 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