Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Christopher Lemar Robinson v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-04-01148-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 22, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Christopher Lemark Robinson appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, following a guilty plea entered without an agreed recommendation from the State. The trial court sentenced him to eight years in prison after a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report was prepared, which included Robinson's claim of self-defense. Robinson argues that the trial court should have sua sponte withdrawn his guilty plea after he made implied denials of guilt. However, the court found that a defendant may withdraw a plea as a matter of right before the trial court takes the case under advisement or pronounces judgment. Once the court has taken the case under advisement, the decision to allow withdrawal is at the trial court's discretion. The court noted that Robinson never requested to withdraw his plea nor objected to his punishment. The PSI report indicated Robinson was concerned about the trial outcome due to witness testimony and expressed remorse for the injury caused. The trial court accepted Robinson’s plea and found sufficient evidence to support his guilt, which is within its discretion. The court affirmed that it is not required to withdraw a guilty plea sua sponte in light of later evidence that could raise doubt about the defendant's guilt. Robinson acknowledges that his appeal contradicts established case law, specifically Jackson v. State, and requests the court to overturn this precedent. However, as an intermediate appellate court, it is bound to follow the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that it did not abuse its discretion in not withdrawing Robinson's guilty plea. The opinion was issued by Justice Elsa Alcala, with the panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Alcala.