stating that “[b]oth statute and caselaw are unequivocal that a plea of guilty causes the trial to become unitary”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[b]oth statute and caselaw are unequivocal that a plea of guilty causes the trial to become unitary”
- conditionally granting mandamus relief in favor of the State requiring the trial court “to submit the entire case—both guilt and punishment—to the jury after the defendant plead guilty” to a felony offense
- “[A] plea of guilty to a jury eliminates guilt as an issue to be determined and makes it (continued...) PREVOST –2 Pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, Sections 2(b) and 2(e
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEYERS, J.,
filed a statement dissenting to the denial of Respondent’s Motion for Rehearing.
Article 37.07, Section 2(b), provides that punishment shall be assessed by the judge unless the defendant elects jury assessment in writing before the commencement of the voir dire examination of the jury panel. This was not the case when Rojas v. State, 404 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Crim.App.1966) was decided. Back then, a defendant could request that the jury assess punishment after the jury returned a guilty verdict. Therefore, Rojas really does not apply to this case and should not have been relied upon by the majority. Additionally, because we have no case law indicating that the defendant’s waiver of his right to jury-assessed punishment was improper, the State failed to demonstrate a clear right to the mandamus relief it sought. Therefore, I would grant Respondent’s motion for rehearing and reconsider our holding in this case.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s denial of the motion for rehearing.