Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. App. 1989). · Go Syfert
Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. App. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James Alan Weatherford v. State (texapp, 2015-06-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Alan Weatherford v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Austin, Texas 78701 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)………………................. 24, 25, 29 Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.)..................................................................................................................... 27 Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988) ..........................................25 Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (opinion on rehearing). .....................................................................…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Randy Jay Hofstetter v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App. -Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte Miguel Angel Martinez (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jarrett Ronard Lockridge v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
ANN . art. 26.13(d) (Vernon 2009); Meraz v. State, 950 S.W.2d 739, 742 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1997, no pet.); Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christ 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jarrett Ronard Lockridge v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Ann. art. 26.13(d) (Vernon 2009) ; Meraz v. State, 950 S.W.2d 739, 742 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no pet.) ; Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christ 1989, no pet.) .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Jermaine Taylor v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State , 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Jermaine Taylor v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State , 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Jermaine Taylor v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State , 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Jermaine Taylor v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State , 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Jermaine Taylor v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State , 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perryman v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.); Tex.Code Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte: Francisco Carbajal
Tex. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State , 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christ 1989, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Valdez v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong v. State
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Rodriguez v. State, 850 S.W.2d 603, 607 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1993, no pet.) (court reviewed plea papers with defendant and ensured that defendant understood their contents); Munoz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 69, 75 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd) (court received into evidence at plea hearing defendant's signed waiver and plea, which contained the admonition to non-citizens); Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 598-99 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.) (before accepting defendant’s plea, court inquired whether defendant had reviewed and understood documents he signed, which inclu…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Diaz v. State
Tex. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Munoz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 69, 79 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd.); Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Munoz v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.).
cited Cited "see" Tallant v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.); Sims v. State, 783 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no pet.).
Jorge Felix BLANCO, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
13-88-151-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
May 4, 1989.
771 S.W.2d 598
Juan Jose Martinez, Brownsville, for appellant., Ben Euresti, Jr., County Crim. Dist. Atty., Brownsville, for appellee.
Nye, Seerden, Kennedy.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

SEERDEN, Justice.

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marihuana in an amount more than 50 pounds but less than 200 pounds, a felony. The trial court assessed punishment at 20 years in the Texas Department of Corrections. By a sole point of error, appellant contends that the court erred in failing to admonish him about the effect of a guilty plea on a non-citizen of the United States as Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 26.13(a)(4) (Vernon Supp.1989) requires. The State has not favored us with a brief. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The record shows that the trial court orally inquired of the appellant concerning the voluntariness of his guilty plea, whether he had been threatened, forced, or coerced, whether any promises had been made to him, whether he was competent to stand trial and whether he understood the charges and the proceedings. In addition the trial court admonished appellant of the range of punishment. Even though there was no plea bargain, the careful trial judge explained the effect of a plea bargain, had there been one.

The trial judge did not orally admonish appellant of the matters listed in art. 26.-13(a)(4), which provides:

(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,

although the judge knew appellant was a citizen of Mexico.

The trial judge also orally discussed with appellant the fact that he had signed a document entitled Written Waiver And Consent To Stipulation of Testimony, Waiver of Jury, and Plea of Guilty. The[*599] appellant affirmatively stated his attorney explained the contents of this document to him and interpreted it into the Spanish language. This document contains the admonition to non-citizens set out above. Appellant’s attorney certified that he explained this document to appellant, that appellant understood it, and that he voluntarily and knowingly entered into it with the advice and consent of his attorney.

The trial judge entered her written approval of the document by signing a statement reciting her satisfaction with same and ordered these written documents filed in the papers of the case.

Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 26.13(d) (Vernon Supp.1989) permits the court to make its admonitions either orally or in writing. Section (c) states that substantial compliance with making the admonishments is sufficient unless defendant affirmatively shows he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court.

We hold that the written document containing the admonishment for non-citizens substantially complied with the requirements of art. 26.13(d)(4) and that appellant has made no showing that he was unaware of the consequences of his plea or that he was misled or harmed by the court’s admonishment.

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.