© 2000 Lang Baker
Robuck v State21 S.W.3d 300June 28, 2000 No. 1273-98 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. 1273-98 MICHAEL ROBUCK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON STATES PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS BEXAR COUNTY The opinion of the Court was delivered per curiam. O P I N I O N Without the benefit of a plea bargain, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession of marihuana. Robuck v. State, 974 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. App.San Antonio, 1998). Before Appellant entered his plea, the trial court denied Appellant's pre-trial motions to suppress. Appellant appealed. Citing to Shallhorn v. State, 732 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) and Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972), the Court of Appeals held that because Appellant entered his plea with the understanding that he could appeal the trial courts ruling on his motion to suppress, his plea was not entered voluntarily. Id., at 287. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The State filed a petition for discretionary review. This Court has recently re-examined the Helms Rule. Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in Young when it issued its opinion. The State's petition for discretionary review is therefore granted. We vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand this cause for reconsideration in light of Young. DELIVERED JUNE 28, 2000 PUBLISH This information is made available as a free public service for your personal, non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is" and no representations are made that it is free of mistakes or inaccuracies. This file was derived from the text posted on the web site of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the automatic operation of conversion software, and may contain errors. Baker's Legal Pages are a public service of Freelance Enterprises, Inc.
© 2000 Lang Baker |