Simon Gonzalez v. State
05-15-01386-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Simon Gonzalez entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated robbery (cause F15-75819) and concurrently pleaded guilty in a burglary case and admitted violations in two 2013 cases; sentencing occurred in a single proceeding.
- Trial court found Gonzalez guilty and sentenced him to 30 years for aggravated robbery (also sentenced to 20 years for burglary and 10 years for the 2013 cases); only the aggravated robbery conviction is on appeal.
- Gonzalez argued his guilty plea was involuntary because the court’s admonishments were incorrect and misleading, allegedly suggesting a plea bargain or sentencing recommendation that did not exist.
- The written plea paperwork (signed by Gonzalez and counsel) and the record include express waivers of trial rights, a statement that this was an open plea (no plea bargain), and an acknowledgment that Gonzalez understood the range of punishment.
- At the plea hearing the court correctly stated the punishment range for aggravated robbery, told Gonzalez this was not a plea bargain, asked if he understood and was pleading voluntarily, and elicited affirmative responses; Gonzalez also testified about rejecting a prior 15-year offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was involuntary due to misleading admonishments | Gonzalez: admonishments implied a plea bargain or recommendation; thus he was unaware of true consequences | State: record shows written and oral admonishments, waiver forms, and testimony establishing knowledge and voluntariness | Court: Plea was knowing and voluntary; affirmed |
| Whether substantial compliance with Article 26.13 cures minor admonishment errors | Gonzalez: errors caused confusion about punishment range and plea-bargain status | State: trial court substantially complied with article 26.13; multiple documents and oral statements corrected any ambiguity | Court: Substantial compliance shown; burden shifts to Gonzalez to prove he was misled — he failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (constitutional due process requires record showing plea was voluntary)
- Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (voluntariness of plea may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (no specific script required so long as record shows full understanding)
- Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (due process satisfied if record affirmatively discloses plea was informed)
- Grays v. State, 888 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994) (substantial compliance with article 26.13 creates prima facie showing plea was knowing and voluntary)