holding judge was not required to withdraw defendant’s plea of guilty supported by judicial confession when evidence introduced by defendant raised issue of his being guilty of a lesser offense
How later courts described this case
- holding judge was not required to withdraw defendant’s plea of guilty supported by judicial confession when evidence introduced by defendant raised issue of his being guilty of a lesser offense
- The trial court is not required to withdraw a plea of guilty sua sponte and enter a plea of not guilty for defendant when defendant enters a plea of guilty before court after waiving a jury, even if evidence is adduced that either makes the defendant’s innocence evident or reasonably and fairly raises an issue as to his guilt
- there is no reason for trial court to withdraw guilty plea and enter plea of not guilty for defendant who has entered plea of guilty –17– after waiving jury; trial court will consider evidence submitted as trier of fact and may find defendant guilty of a lesser offense or not guilty
- asserting it was too late to withdraw plea and that holding of Moon is dicta and advisory opinion
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Roberto Gonzalez A/K/A Robert Reyna Gonzalez v. State (2011)
Therefore, Moon is inapplicable to our analysis.
Distinguished by Martin, Ruth Ann v. State (2004)
Thus, the rationale of Moon is inapplicable.
The opinion
OPINION ON THE STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DALLY, Judge.
The majority of the Court now adopts for its opinion the dissenting opinion on original submission. The “straw man” argument presented, the assumptions made, and the discussions concerning the voluntar-iness of the plea, in the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, are wholly irrelevant. The record reflects that the appellant was carefully admonished concerning his guilty plea and that his constitutional rights were fully protected, but in view of the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part a portion of the record will be incorporated in an appendix to this opinion. This portion of the record shows the appellant was fully and completely admonished and that he was accorded due process.
The State’s Motion for Rehearing is granted; the judgment is affirmed.