[DOWNLOAD] "Preston Hughes v. State Texas" by Supreme Court Of Utah * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Preston Hughes v. State Texas
- Author : Supreme Court Of Utah
- Release Date : January 17, 1992
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
Appellant, in a combined hearing, pled guilty to the separate charges of aggravated assault, a third degree felony, and aggravated sexual assault, a first degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ?? 22.02 and 22.021 (Vernon 1974). Substantial evidence of appellants guilt was found by the trial court, and he was convicted and placed on two concurrent ten year terms of deferred adjudication. While released, appellant deviated from the conditions of his probation and was incarcerated. His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences. He then appealed to the Sixth Court of Appeals which, in a published opinion, reformed the sentence for aggravated assault from life to ten years confinement and affirmed the trial courts judgment. Hughes v. State, 806 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1990). On petition to this Court, appellant contends that the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial courts finding of guilty on the aggravated assault charge. In four "Points of Error" [sic], he alleges: (1) that it was error to find that the trial courts admonishment on aggravated sexual assault could validate his guilty plea for the aggravated assault charge; (2) that the court of appeals erred in determining that such an admonishment substantially complied with the requirements of Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; (3) that the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court had determined that appellant made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea; and (4) that it was error for the court of appeals to hold that the record reflected that his plea was given in a knowing, intelligent and voluntary manner. Appellants Br. at 5-12. We granted review on these four grounds in order to consider whether the admonishments given complied with Article 26.13 of our Code. We will reverse the decision of the court of appeals.