Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. App. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. App. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Raul Resendez Herrera v. State (texapp, 2016-04-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raul Resendez Herrera v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (holding that testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (same); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.— 4 Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104 , 105–06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding that testimony was beyond scope of permissible lay-opinion testimony).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raul Resendez Herrera v. State
Tex. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (holding that testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (same); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104 , 105–06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding that testimony was beyond scope of permissible lay opinion testimony).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whatley, Jermaine Eugene
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury's punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104 , 105–06 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1987, no pet.); Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) The Record During the course of her testimony the complaining witness expressed her desire that the appellant not be granted probation, but be put “somewhere else” meaning prison.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lopez, Richard M.
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond s…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard M. Lopez v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“Several courts of appeals have held that a victim’s testimony regarding what punishment should be assessed can properly be excluded from evidence.” Hines v. State, 396 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (citing Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond s…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Damon Heath Saenz v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (providing that victim’s opinion on type of punishment the defendant should receive was irrelevant in assessing a proper punishment); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (providing that victim’s testimony on an appropriate sentence was not relevant); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104 , 105–06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (providing that a victim’s testimony on pun…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roger Reyes v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); Mayo v. State, 861 S.W.2d 953 , 955 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d); Gross v. State, 10 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roger Reyes v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g. , Johnson v. State , 987 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd); Wright v. State , 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); Mayo v. State , 861 S.W.2d 953 , 955 n.2 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd); Hughes v. State , 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd); Gross v. State , 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1987, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly Wayne Dozier v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
App. 1989); Wright v. State , 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) Defense counsel in the trial court conceded that Simpson was “directly on point” against him, as the proposed testimony did not address any mitigating factor, but instead directly recommended a sentence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freddie Fritz Willhite v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
We defer resolution of this issue to Appellant’s second point. 5 S.W.3d 374 , 375–76 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.); Lee v. State, 39 S.W.3d 373 , 375 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Estrada, 981 S.W.2d at 70 ; Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freddie Fritz Willhite v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Scott v. State, 86 S.W.3d 374 , 375–76 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.); Lee v. State, 39 S.W.3d 373 , 375 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Estrada , 981 S.W.2d at 70 ; Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reza, Troy Anthony v. State
Tex. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Johnson v. State , 987 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref = d); Wright v. State , 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); Hughes v. State , 787 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. App. C Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Ann. art. 26.13(d) (Vernon 1989) (permitting trial court to admonish defendant orally or in writing); Cantu v. State, 988 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1999, pet. ref'd) (holding defendant who waived court reporter and received written admonishments could not show plea was involuntary); Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (stating court may admonish the defendant either orally or in writing).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 668 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (trial judge correctly sustained State’s objection to the victim’s testimony on the type of punishment defendant should receive); Fuller v. State, 819 S.W.2d 254, 258 (Tex.App.— Austin 1991, pet. ref'd) (witness may not recommend a particular punishment to the trier of fact); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (trial judge properly excluded testimony of the complainant in indecency with child case requesting lenient sentence); see also Fryer v. State, 993 S.W.2d 385, 388 (…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor, Jeffery Edward v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Wright v. State , 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (trial judge correctly sustained State's objection to the victim's testimony on the type of punishment defendant should receive); Fuller v. State , 819 S.W.2d 254, 258 (Tex.App.-Austin 1991, pet. ref'd) (witness may not recommend a particular punishment to the trier of fact); Gross v. State , 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (trial judge properly excluded testimony of the complainant in indecency with child case requesting lenient sentence); see also Fryer v. State, 993 S.W.2d 385, 388 (Tex. Ap…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vega, Mario v. State
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Wright v. State , 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); Hughes v. State , 787 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fryer v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Ortiz v. State, 834 S.W.2d 343, 348 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (holding that admissibility of expert’s sentencing recommendation properly analyzed under Texas Rules of Evidence); Wright, 962 S.W.2d at 663 (holding that admissibility of victim’s sentencing recommendation properly analyzed under rules of evidence); see also Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Sattiewhite v. State, 786 S.W.2d 271, 290 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet. h.).
discussed Cited "see" Manuel Ramirez v. State
Tex. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (“The argument that a witness may recommend a particular punishment to the trier of fact has been soundly rejected by the court of criminal appeals.”).
discussed Cited "see" Undra Dewayne Brown v. State
Tex. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (testimony not relevant to jury’s determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (testimony was beyond scope of lay opinion testimony).
discussed Cited "see" Bradley Jason Jordan v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (Victim's opinion on "type of punishment [defendant] should receive was irrelevant . . . in assessing a proper punishment."); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd) (The victim's testimony on an appropriate sentence was not relevant.); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (Victim's testimony on question of punishment would have little value, because the witness is in no better position to form an opinion than the jury itself.); but see …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Charles Wayne Hines v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Wright v. State, 962 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding testimony was not relevant to jury’s punishment determination); Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd) (same); Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1987, no pet.) (holding testimony was beyond scope of permissible lay opinion testimony under Tex.R.Crim.
Lewis Allen WRIGHT, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, State
2-97-143-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Feb 5, 1998.
962 S.W.2d 661
Sheila R. Randolph, Fort Worth, for appellant., Tim Curry, Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles M. Mallín, Asst. & Chief of Appellate Div., Steven W. Conder and Andrea Rentie, Assistants, Fort Worth, for appellee.
Cayce, Day, Holman.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

[*662] OPINION

CAYCE, Chief Justice.

Lewis Allen Wright pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen and was sentenced to twenty years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. In two points, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to admonish him prior to accepting his guilty plea in violation of article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in failing to allow the child-victim to testify at the punishment hearing. We will affirm.

Because appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, we will discuss the facts of this appeal only as applicable to each point raised.

A grand jury indicted appellant for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age. On October 29,1996, appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the court and elected to have the court assess punishment. Prior to accepting appellant’s plea, the court provided appellant with the following: (1) Written Plea Admonishments, (2) a Written Waiver of Defendant — Joined By Attorney, (3) a Judicial Confession, and (4) an Application for Community Supervision — all contained within one four-page document. The record reflects that appellant signed the written waiver, the confession, and the application, but he did not sign the written admonishments.

The written admonishments identified appellant as the defendant and stated, among other things:

TO THE DEFENDANT: Pursuant to Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, you are hereby admonished, in writing as follows:
1. You are charged by indictment or information with the felony offense of agg sexl aslt — child under 14 offense code: 110132.
[[Image here]]
5. The range of punishment for this offense is checked below:
[/] FIRST DEGREE FELONY: Life or any term of not more than 99 nor less than 6 years in the penitentiary, and in addition a fine of not more than $10,000 may be assessed.
The written waiver provided:
Comes now the Defendant, in open court, joined by my attorney, and states as follows:
1. I can read and write the English language, have read and fully understand all the foregoing written plea admonishments and have no questions....
[[Image here]]
3. I am aware of the consequences of my plea, including the possible punishment.
4. I am mentally competent and my plea is made knowingly, freely and voluntarily entered [sic]. [Emphasis supplied.]

An Attorney’s Certificate executed by appellant’s attorney provided as follows:

I have fully reviewed and explained to the Defendant the above and foregoing court admonishments, rights and waivers, and the following Judicial Confession, and I am fully satisfied the Defendant understands each, and is legally competent and has freely, intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily waived his/her rights, has judicially confessed his/her guilt, and will plead guilty, understanding the consequences thereof.

In his first point, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to admonish him about punishment prior to accepting his guilty plea in violation of article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, appellant contends his plea was involuntary because he did not sign the court’s written admonishments.

Article 26.13 provides:

(a) Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of:
(1) the range of the punishment attached to the offense....

Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(1) (Vernon 1989). The purpose of article 26.13 is to assure that the defendant who pleads guilty understands the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. See Bas- [*663] ham v. State, 608 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex.Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). In admonishing the defendant, “substantial compliance by the court is sufficient, unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court.” Tex.Code CRim. PROC. Ann. art. 26.18(c). The court may admonish the defendant either orally or in writing; however, “[i]f the court makes the admonitions in writing, it must receive a statement signed by the defendant and the defendant’s attorney that he understands the admonitions and is aware of the consequences of his plea.” Id. art. 26.13(d) (emphasis supplied).

In the instant case, we hold that the signed written waiver is a “statement” for purposes of article 26.13; it states that appellant understood the admonishments and was aware of the punishment consequences of his guilty plea. See Gomez v. State, 921 S.W.2d 329, 337 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.); Lindsey v. State, 902 S.W.2d 9, 12 (Tex.App. —Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.). Therefore, we find that the trial court substantially complied with article 26.13. Appellant’s first point is overruled.

In his second point, appellant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to the victim’s testimony on the type of punishment appellant should receive. [1] The argument that a witness may recommend a particular punishment to the trier of fact has been soundly rejected by the court of criminal appeals. See Sattiewhite v. State, 786 S.W.2d 271, 290 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 226, 112 L.Ed.2d 181 (1990); see also Hughes v. State, 787 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd). This has been extended by courts of appeals to recommendations by victims. See Hughes, 787 S.W.2d at 196; Gross v. State, 730 S.W.2d 104, 105-06 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1987, no pet.).

In this case, the victim’s opinion of the type of punishment appellant should receive was irrelevant to the court’s evaluation of the facts and evidence of the case in assessing a proper punishment. See Gross, 730 S.W.2d at 106 (testimony of minor sex abuse victim held irrelevant to punishment). We find, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. Appellant’s second point is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1

. In the presentence investigation report, the victim stated that she did not care if appellant received probation, as long as he was not allowed to contact her.