Steven DeWayne Pruitt v. The State of Texas Appeal from 8th District Court of Hopkins County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-14-00051-CR STEVEN DEWAYNE PRUITT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 1323451 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION Steven Dewayne Pruitt was convicted on an open plea of guilty of delivery of marihuana between one-fourth of an ounce and five pounds in a drug-free zone. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. This case was tried along with two other companion cases, which are subjects of two other pending appeals before this Court.1 Pruitt filed a single, consolidated brief covering all three appeals, in which he contends that his guilty pleas were not voluntary because of the trial court’s failure to properly admonish Pruitt regarding sentencing in connection with the burglary of a habitation charge. The argument raised in this appeal is based exclusively on the argument of error brought before this Court in the companion appeal styled Pruitt v. State, cause number 06-14-00058-CR. In our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found error, but that it did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Pruitt contends in connection with this appeal that the error necessarily made his plea in this case involuntary. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we conclude in this case that no harm has been shown and overrule the issue as it applies to this appeal. 1 In companion case 06-14-00058-CR, Pruitt appeals from a conviction of burglary of a habitation with the exhibition of a deadly weapon. In companion case 06-14-00059-CR, Pruitt appeals from a conviction of delivery of marihuana in an amount between one-fourth ounce and five pounds in a drug-free zone. 2 We affirm the judgment. Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: February 25, 2015 April 8, 2015 Do Not Publish 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
