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.
Jeremy Clayton Ross v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-00-00260-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 24, 2001; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Jeremy Clayton Ross pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in August 1998 under a plea bargain that capped his sentence at ten years. The district court deferred adjudication, placing him on ten years of community supervision. In April 2000, the court revoked this supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Ross claims the court inadequately advised him of the consequences of violating supervision, which he argues rendered his plea involuntary and prevented him from intelligently deciding whether to seek adjudication within the statutory thirty days. He contends that proper admonishment would have influenced his plea decision, particularly regarding the risk of losing the ten-year cap on his sentence. However, the court had informed him that upon revocation, he could face up to 99 years or life, which contradicts his assertion that he was unaware he could receive more than the initially agreed-upon ten years. The court's failure to use precise statutory language did not negate the essence of the admonishment provided. Consequently, the appellate court overruled Ross's claims and affirmed the conviction. Additionally, the court noted that any concerns about the plea should have been raised in an earlier appeal, but did not explore this further as the State did not contest it. Appellant Jeremy Clayton Ross, originally sentenced under a plea bargain for aggravated robbery with a maximum of ten years, had his community supervision revoked and was sentenced to life imprisonment after being adjudicated guilty. He claims that the district court inadequately informed him of the consequences of violating his supervision, arguing this rendered his guilty plea involuntary and hindered his ability to timely seek adjudication. The court noted that the potential punishment upon revocation could exceed the ten-year limit initially agreed upon, as established in previous rulings (McNew and Ditto). Despite the court's failure to follow the precise admonishment language required, it did inform Ross of the potential for a much harsher sentence if his supervision was revoked. Consequently, the court found that Ross's claims of harm were unfounded, leading to the overruling of his issues and affirming the judgment of conviction.