*1 823 CLINTON, Judge, concurring. THOMAS, Betty Lynn Appellant, State,
In Dovalina v. 564 378 S.W.2d v. (Tex.Cr.App.1978) the that problem sharply divided the Court that the was indictment Texas, Appellee. The of STATE did not allege specific a intent to commit an No. 64030. object Here, however, just offense. such Texas, Appeals Court of Criminal of specific Thus, alleged. intent is whatever No. 1. Panel the merit of use of permitting the averment of “attempt” duty by to serve double con- 11, 1980. June struing it missing specific to embrace the allegations, intent Dovalina does not solve problem
the here presented by Pousson.
Indeed, since the indictment in Dovalina he
particularly alleged that did “unlawfully,
knowingly intentionally attempt and to
cause victim, the death1” the of named
whereas very here that is the omission of
which complains, Pousson the Dovalina plu-
rality holding is point opinion not in and its
hardly persuasive. alleges,
Here the indictment in conclusory
language sure, to be that Pousson did “at-
tempt to cause the death” of the named
victim, goes explain and then toon factual-
ly the act amounting to more than mere
preparation “by shooting at the victim — with gun.” a Coupled with the other factu- allegations
al prescribed the including spe- intent,
cific the indictment avoids any fun-
damental defect and to is sufficient state an provision
offense aby denounced of the
penal code. I in the
Accordingly, concur result in this
respect.
ONION, J., P. and ROBERTS and
ODOM, JJ., join opinion. in this Henrichs, Dallas, appel-
Russell W. for lant. throughout emphasis supplied by opinion otherwise indi- is writer of this unless
1. All the cated. *2 824 Wade, having already appellant’s received
Henry Atty., M. Dist. Maridell After confession, Meier, the trial Templeton judicial and Todd C. Asst. Dist. court written Dallas, Huttash, sponte to failing Robert State’s did err in sua with- Attys., not Austin, guilty the of and enter a Atty., appellant’s plea for State. draw plea Appellant’s not for her. con- guilty of ONION, J., Before P. and and ROBERTS is tention overruled. DALLY, JJ. judgment affirmed. The is OPINION ONION, Judge, Presiding dissenting. DALLY, Judge. example why a of the rule This is classic jury Appellant by State, (Tex.Cr. trial and en- waived 681 in Moon v. 572 S.W.2d the to plea guilty precedent tered a of before court overruling long time App.1978), a possession the offense of of controlled finding guilt of wrong. is Here before the substance, 4476-15, namely, heroin. Art. by appellant the trial the testified court 4.04, The pun- Sec. V.A.C.S. court assessed purchase did not the under oath that she imprisonment years ishment at for five in heroin was and had no idea that the heroin Department the Texas of Corrections. in had loaned to a purse her which been received, was testimony friend. When this error, single ground appellant In a of the sua have halted the sponte court should by contends that the trial court erred fail- appellant an proceedings offered the and ing sponte appellant’s plea to sua withdraw testimony or opportunity to withdraw such of guilty when evidence was introduced appellant the plea guilty. enter a of not If reasonably question which raised the as to action, court should had refused such the the appellant’s guilt. guilty plea have not for her then entered a judicial The record a written contains proceeding. before the stated: “I appellant confession wherein justice that a my It offends sense of knowingly intentionally possess did and a proceeding is to contin- guilty plea allowed substance, heroin, to-wit: as controlled ue a of despite protestations defendant’s in the charged indictment.” innocence. her own tes- appellant The contends that I dissent. timony plea guilty after her of raised a question guilt. appellant of her The had purchase
testified that she did not the her-
oin that had no idea the heroin had and she
been left in her purse. State, (Tex.Cr. v.
In Moon
App.1978), Court MILTON, Appellant, sponte is longer no to sua with required Charles plea plea a enter a of guilty draw of and v. the guilty not for a when defend defendant Texas, Appellee. The STATE of of before the plea guilty ant enters the if No. a even evidence 64268. waiving jury, court after reasonably fairly is and might adduced that Texas, of of Appeals Court Criminal guilt an issue of fact as to the of the raise En Banc. the trier of judge defendant. The trial as 11, withdrawing may plea the without the June 1980. facts finding the defend decide the issue either 2, Rehearing July Denied 1980. he believes the guilty guilty ant not or as State, require. v. 573 facts See Sullivan 1, 4(Tex.Cr.App.1978) Knight and v.
S.W.2d
State, (Tex.Cr.App.1979). 581 692 S.W.2d