IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

 


NO. 1079-99

LADDERICK DONNELL WILCOX, Appellant


v.



THE STATE OF TEXAS



ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

MILAM COUNTY

Price, J., delivered a concurring opinion, in which McCormick, P.J., and Meyers and Keasler, J.J., joined.

O P I N I O N



I write separately to emphasize my displeasure with the actions taken by the trial court here. I cannot condone its act of dismissing the jury and sitting as fact-finder for the punishment evidence. When a defendant pleads guilty in front of a jury, the trial is not bifurcated, but rather is a unitary trial asking that the fact-finder determine punishment only -- not guilt. See Carroll v. State, 975 S.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Trial courts should not attempt to circumvent the State's statutory right to refuse consent to a defendant's jury waiver by dismissing the jury before it has performed its only objective in a guilty plea case: determining punishment.

With these thoughts, I concur in the improvident grant of the State's petition.

Price, J.

Date Delivered: May 3, 2000

Publish