Kidd v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1DissentPhillips, Judge
The majority affirms appellant’s conviction, notwithstanding the glaring omission of the trial court in its utter failure to admonish appellant as mandated by Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P.1 Without explaining how it was accomplished, the majority concludes that substantial compliance “has been shown.” We have searched the trial court’s colloquy with appellant and find absolutely no reference by the trial court to its discretion to punish appellant without regard to any recommendation the prosecutor may put forth. The trial court’s admonishment is set forth here for posterity.
“THE COURT: . . .…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Gainous v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1969
- Currie v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.