# Cain v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 18, 1997 · 947 S.W.2d 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769760

## Case

- **Full name:** Jimmy Don CAIN, Appellant. v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 18, 1997
- **Citations:** 947 S.W.2d 262; 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 54; 1997 WL 331774
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **Judges:** Keller, Baird, Mansfield, Overstreet, Meyers, Price
- **Cited by:** 933 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769760

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[e]xcept for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as 'structural,' no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error a…
- holding that ‘‘except for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the Supreme Court as ‘structural,’ no error whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis.”
- holding that former Rule 81(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires harm analysis for all trial errors except those held “structural” by Supreme Court
- recognizing that, “where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis, then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”
- holding that except for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as "structural," no error is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis

## Opinion text

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 26.13(a) provides that prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of:
“(4) the fact that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States of America, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for the offense charged may result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law.”
The record — to be specific, State’s Exhibit 1, appellant’s penitentiary packet — established appellant was a United States citizen, born in Parker County, Texas. It is thus beyond dispute that appellant is a United States citizen and cannot be deported for any reason unless he affirmatively renounces his citizenship.
In Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. Crim.App.1994), we held that failure to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment was reversible error, even without a showing of harm. There was nothing in the record indicating appellant’s citizenship in Morales ; therefore, Morales is distinguishable from the present case where the record clearly establishes appellant is a United States citizen. It is reasonable to conclude the Legislature intended, in enacting article 26.13(a)(4), that defendants pleading guilty or nolo contendere would not have to litigate the issue of citizenship. Morales, supra, at 755 . Therefore, any defendant pleading guilty or nolo contendere must be given the admonishment where the record is silent as to citizenship as well as, of course, where the record indicates the defendant is not a United States citizen.
Yet, it seems obvious to me the Legislature could not have possibly intended for us — or any other appellate court in Texas— to reverse the conviction of a defendant who pled guilty or nolo contendere for failure by the trial court to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment where there is no doubt the record affirmatively establishes the defendant is a Untied States citizen. The sole purpose of the 26.13(a)(4) admonishment — to inform the non-U.S. citizen defendant that pleading guilty or nolo contendere may result in deportation or other adverse consequences under federal immigration law — is legally irrelevant with respect to a defendant who is a United States citizen. Therefore, interpreting the plain language of § 26.13(a)(4) of the admonishment statute to mandate automatic reversal of a conviction for failing to give it to appellant — a United States citizen to whom it *267 is legally inapplicable — would lead to an absurd result. Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Accordingly, the error — failing to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment — in the present case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Tex.R.App.Proc. 81(b)(2).
With these comments, I join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769760. Public record. Not legal advice.