tcdla - Voice For The Defense Online

not apply with plea bargains but only wlien the punisl~ment messed
does not exceed that agreed to by tl~e parties. Because hre was no
agreed puuishment, COA bad jurisdiction to hear tlie case.
(2) Adhnonisluuent of Sex Offender Registmtion. Becat~se COA
holds that see offender registration is not a direct eoosequeuce of the
guilty plea, oidy a colkted one, the faiiure to so admonish the defendant
does not render his plea invo11mt;uy. It does, however, fad to conlply
with TCCP Act. 26.13 and thus is reversible. [Note: Act. 26.13
specificauy requires the admonishment where applicable.]
NECESSITY DEFENSE ESTABLISHED: PENNmTGTON u. Sfafe,
No. 22-0-341-CR, 8/27/01.
Necessity raised as a defeuse to posessian of a conmoUed substme
where defendant testiEes that she ggrabbed dmgs off table when
sl~c snv boj&nd t~slng tliem md her son walking into tlie roam. She
then nn out of the Iiouse and down the street uyhere shewas wrested
by police. Imporhnce of case is tl~a COA holds that dullile evidence of
a legal alternative, hele cdling the poke to nun boyfriend tn, is relewnt
to the issue, it, by itself does not contl'ol its resohhon. COA finds
evidence sufficie~~t to establish elements of defense.
STATE'S APPEAL UNAUTHORIZED BY flATVlR State u.
DWGEUS, NO. 08-01-00205-CR, 8/23/01.
State may not appeal a decision to exclude evidence based on privilege.
TCCP 44.01 hits state appeds to those motions that seek to
exclude ikgdly obtdned evidence, not motions based on rules of cvideuce
mother ucclusiona~yrules. COAacknow1cdges that issue is currently
before CCA on PDR but rexerses anyway
PELON DWI: BLWOT U. Sfate, No. 14-00-00847-CR, 8/23/01.
The defendant, charged wit11 felony DWI, songht to hoke Tumea
u. State, 11 S.W.3d 198 but instcad sought to exclude dl evidcl~ce of
prior DWls, including pmhibiihig state from reading
.
auegations to the
jury, instcad of jug, ash1 'PBmea, the evida~ce itself. COA holds that,
becmse the defe~idmt sought more relief iu his motion and objection
than that to which he w;ls entitled under Tc~nte-z, the tiid court was
within ils prisdicfion to properly deny tlie motion.
NO RIGllT TO SERVICE DP PSI: TORRANE u. Sfate, No.
2-00-405-CR, SIL9/01.
COA holds that a defm~da~it is llor entitled to be pe~so~~dy sewed
with Pre Sentam Report in order to be able to lodge objectioos to it
JURY WAIVER: EGGBR 11. State, No. 04-96-00654-CR, 8/29/01.
PLUSEE-fAAlLDR FAX
A defendant mq~~ot
collate~ally attack a prior judgment used for
cnliance~ne~~t based 011 it's failure to haw a witten julywaiver. This is
not tlkc kind of issue that re~~de~x the prior jndgment vold.
NOVEMBER 2001 WWW.lCOLA.COM VOICE FOR THE DEf€N$E 55