green
Positive treatment
13.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Ex Parte Nguyen
But cf. Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (granting the relief requested in Cervantes’s application for writ of habeas corpus, where Cervantes had imminent deportation proceedings pending as a result of his final felony conviction), overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Meraz v. State, 950 S.W.2d 739, 741-42 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.) (addressing Meraz's writ of habeas corpus in a misdemeanor case where the sentence had been fully discharged and Meraz was detained under a $10,000 bond as deportable for the misdemea…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Byron David Pearson v. Heather Pearson
Bogart v. Somer, 762 S.W.2d 577, 577 (Tex. 1988); Amador v. Berrospe, 961 S.W.2d 205, 207-08 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. denied).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Garza
(2×)
STAT. art. 179(e), § 6.04(a) (prerequisite to issuing race track license); id. art. 6243e.2(1), § 6(d)(rebuttal of presumption of on-duty firefighter disability). [52] E.g., Garza v. Maverick Mkt., Inc., 768 S.W.2d 273, 275-276 (Tex.1989) (requiring clear and convincing proof of paternity in wrongful death actions); Bogart v. Somer, 762 S.W.2d 577, 577 (Tex.1988) (per curiam) (requiring clear and convincing proof to refute the presumption of gift). [53] 443 U.S. at 318-319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 (emphasis in original). [54] 96 S.W.3d at 266 ; In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex.2002). [55] Ellis Coun…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mata v. State
(2×)
Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of D.I.B.
See Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753, 754-55 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (plurality opinion) (requiring reversal when the trial court wholly failed to advise the defendant that if he was not a citizen of the United States, a plea of guilty could result in deportation), overruled, by Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (same), overruled by Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (requiring reversal when the trial court failed to inform the defendant of the rang…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re DIB
PROC. art. 26.13. [19] Cain, 947 S.W.2d at 264 (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-10 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), which held that admission into evidence of an involuntary confession is subject to a harm analysis); see also High, 964 S.W.2d at 638 ; Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (plurality opinion). [20] 964 S.W.2d 637 . [21] 947 S.W.2d 262 . [22] 941 S.W.2d 922 . [23] See Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753, 754-55 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (plurality opinion) (requiring reversal when the trial court wholly failed to advise the defendant that if he w…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maye v. State
Ex Parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cain v. State
(2×)
See, Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex. Cr.App.1980); Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.CrApp.1988); and, Hughes v. State, 833 S.W.2d 137, 140 . 2 To find substantial compliance in cases where there had been a total failure to admonish would stand Boykin on its head.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lamb v. State
In reviewing, on direct appeal, the almost identical situation where the trial court completely failed to admonish the defendant upon his plea of guilty to a felony offense, the Morales Court affirmed its prior decision in Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), that “the complete failure to comply with an admonishment required by the statute [article 26.13(a)(4), supra ] requires reversal,” and held that because of the failure, “a prima fade case was not made and there is no requirement appellant show harm.” Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d at 754-55 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodgers v. State
Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cain v. State
Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 , 754-55 *685 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (en banc) (citing Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) and Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dominguez v. State
Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), citing Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); see also Tex.Code Crim.ProoAnn. art. 26.13(c).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. State
Morales, 872 S.W.2d at 754 ; Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morales v. State
(2×)
Subsequently, however, in Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. Cr.App.1988), we held: "While admonishments which substantially comply with Article 26.13 are sufficient, the complete failure to comply with an admonishment required by the statute requires reversal.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arriola v. State
Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.Tex.App.1988); Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Reyes v. State, 774 S.W.2d 670 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Reyes v. State
Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Patrick O'Connor v. Shannon Kathleen O'Connor
See Somer v. Bogart, 749 S.W.2d 202, 203-04 (Tex. App.—Dallas, writ denied), approved 762 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1988) (writing on rehearing of writ denial to approve holding that burden to refute presumption of gift is clear and convincing evidence).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Estate of Foster
See Somer v. Bogart, 749 S.W.2d 202, 204 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988), writ denied, 762 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.1988) (per curiam), holding that the burden of proof in refuting the presumption of gift by a parent to a child is by clear and convincing evidence. 4 .
cited
Cited "see"
Osuna v. Quintana
Masterson v. Hogue, 842 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, no writ); see Somer v. Bogart, 749 S.W.2d 202, 204 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1988), writ denied, Bogart v. Somer, 762 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matchett v. State
(2×)
See Ex Parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577 , 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988)(deportation proceeding actually in progress at time of appeal). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ellis County State Bank v. Keever
(2×)
See Bogart v. Somer, 762 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.1988) (per curiam). [6] Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Ortiz, 753 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1988, writ denied); see also Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. v. Lieck, 845 S.W.2d 926, 935 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1992, writ granted) ("clear and convincing"); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Medina, 814 S.W.2d 71, 73 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied) (same); Ada Oil Co. v. Dillaberry, 440 S.W.2d 902, 914 (Tex.Civ.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1969, writ dism'd) ("positive, clear and satisfactory"); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Kirkland, 225 S.W.2d 906, 9…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Gorham v. State
See, e.g., Ex parte Cervantes, 762 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), overruled on other grounds, Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Mario Tovar Cervantes.
70607.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct 4, 1988.
Robert E. Kahn, Houston, for appellant., Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 41 opinions | Published
OPINION
PER CURIAM.This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
The trial court convicted applicant of the offense of felony driving while intoxicated and assessed his punishment at 5 years in the Texas Department of Corrections. No appeal was taken from this conviction.
In the instant case the applicant contends that the trial Court failed to admonish him pursuant to Article 26.13(a)(4), V.A.C.C.P. (1987), that his plea of guilty could result in his deportation.
A hearing was conducted on these allegations, at which copies of the papers in the court’s file for this case and a transcription of his plea proceedings were admitted, and it was noted that applicant has imminent deportation proceedings pending as a result of this conviction. This record reflects applicant was admonished in writing, pursuant to Article 26.13(d), V.A.C.C.P., and that no reference to possible deportation was made either in the written admonishments, or in open court.
While admonishments which substantially comply with Article 26.13 are sufficient, the complete failure to comply with an admonishment required by the statute requires reversal. Ex parte McAtee, 599 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Such a complete failure is reflected in this record.
The relief sought is granted. The judgment against applicant in Cameron County cause number 87-CR-858-B is hereby set aside, and applicant remanded to answer the indictment against him.
No motion for rehearing will be allowed.