# Espinosa v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 11, 1973 · 493 S.W.2d 172

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776715

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 11, 1973
- **Citations:** 493 S.W.2d 172; 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2415
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Roberts
- **Judges:** Morrison, Onion
- **Cited by:** 28 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/9776715

## Opinion text

*174 ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority that the admonishment given appellant reflects “sufficient compliance” with Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P. As we stated in Rogers v. State, 479 S.W.2d 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the admonishment cannot be supplied by inference, intendment or presumption. It appears to me that is exactly what the majority does here today. The fact remains that no inquiry was made of appellant as to whether or not he was pleading guilty because of any persuasion, or delusive hope of pardon. The statute is too plainly worded to misconstrue. To comply with it places a very small burden on the trial judge. If we bend a little today, where do we draw the line as to what does, in fact, constitute “sufficient compliance” ? See Crocker v. State, 485 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) and Jefferson v. State, 486 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause.
I respectfully dissent.
ONION, P. J., joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776715. Public record. Not legal advice.