*1 126 probation. my trary to the terms con-
me for driver’s license and filled out of We therefore, clude, that the court did not my a He asked me form from license. revoking probation. in questions listed on this form and if I had abuse its discretion State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 felony. a been convicted of I answered Hardison v. See signed questions, no the form to all the S.W.2d 638. gave gun.”
and he me the judgment is affirmed. The Appellant that Caviel did not testified by the Opinion approved Court. specifically him if he had ever been ask punishable by a term convicted of a crime if he
exceeding year, only one but asked
had offense been convicted of a “federal” Ir- “any he in trouble.”
and whether was denial,
respective appellant’s the record of
reflects that the Firearms Transaction that certification
Record which contained a were true the answers therein contained HARRIS, Appellant, Audrey Mae a acknowledgment that and correct and an v. transac- respect to the false statement with ap- signed by felony was tion constituted a Appellee. Texas, The STATE of in without pellant and admitted evidence No. 46654. statement objection. The aforementioned Appeals Court of Criminal of Texas. was admitted Treasury to the Officer objection. without July 3, 1973. cre- the trial court evidence before
The appellant as whether
ated a fact issue to probation in the re- of
did violate his order to re-
spects in the motion alleged State’s against the issue court decided
voke. The
appellant. by the discretion no abuse of
findWe
trial court. is of error ground
Appellant’s second
overruled. claims of error ground
Appellant’s third revoking appel- in of discretion
an abuse appel- that ground the probation on
lant’s of res- payment in the delinquent
lant was costs, probation adult
titution, and court
fees. appellant’s the evidence of
While probation costs, adult court
ability pay to intentional and his and restitution
fees is fees aforementioned pay the to
failure appel
inconclusive, not consider we need there because ground of error
lant’s third appellant that indicate ample is evidence to (cid:127) con- the States a law of United
violated
127 *2 has Beaumont, ap- any persuasion” there Matheny, tion of fear or for & Goodwin compliance the man- been a minimum with pellant. 26.13, datory provisions of Article Ver- Hanna, De- Atty., Dist. R. Tom John Ann.C.C.P., any concern- non’s and inquiry Beaumont, Witt, Atty., D. Asst. Dist. Jim in pardon” ing of contained hope “delusive Vollers, Hut- Atty. and Robert A. State’s long- the same statute is no sentence of the Austin, tash, Atty., the Asst. for State’s mandatory necessary. er or even State. ROBERTS, in J., joins this concurrence. OPINION
MORRISON, Judge. heroin; the possession of
The offense is guilty before a
punishment, upon plea a of eighteen years.
jury, (18) is that Appellant’s ground first of error parte WILLIAMS, Ex Kenneth Jr. properly before was admonished she not No. 47294. accepted plea guilty. her of the court Appeals of Criminal of Texas. Court outset, appellant plead not guilty. At the July 3, 1973. changed she During the course of the trial plea guilty. her that to of ad jury
In the absence of court the the pun appellant range
monished as the to of plea inquired
ishment. He whether her “voluntary” ade
was and whether had she
quately her attor discussed case with her However,
ney. there is an absence entire or any concerning force
of admonishment Inquiry
fear, promise persuasion. or or requisite is
concerning these considerations 26.13, compliance Article
for minimum with v.
Vernon’s See Heathcock Ann.C.C.P. 570, Tex.Cr.App., 494
State, S.W.2d State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.
Martinez v. State, Espinosa
2d v. 545. Tex.Cr. Cf. 172,
App., Mitchell v. 493 and S.W.2d
State, 174. Tex.Cr.App., S.W.2d 493 stated, re- judgment
For the error the is
versed and the cause remanded.
ONION, Presiding Judge (concurring). reached,
I concur in the result but would point
further out that the admonishment failing inquire if the was deficient for to Amarillo, for Fairweather, W. Charles plea any by was uninfluenced “delusive appellant. hope my puz- pardon.” express of I must A. Vollers, Atty., Robert State’s the had D. zlement at inference if there that Jim Austin, for Huttash, Atty., inquiry Asst. guilty been an as to the State’s whether plea by any the was “uninfluenced considera- State.