I have a defendant that will plea no contest but wants to mark up my normal stip of evidence to basically say he agrees that my evidence will prove he did it but he won't say its true or that he agrees he did it. anyone have a form stip of evid for this? I've reviewed Stat v. Stone 919 sw2d 424 and can come up with something but wanted help. thanks.

Am I the only one that thinks this sounds like the tail wagging the dog? I think if the defendant wants to plead no contest, that the no contest plea under the law by definition has the effect that the defendant is seeking and it needs no further explanation. I would suggest that the defendant make a special request on the record to make those statements. There are certain things that of course need to be tailored to each case, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

Unless, of course, you really really really want this case to go away and are willing to do anything to make that happen.

tail wagging the dog is "spot" on (miserable unintentional dog name joke at no extra charge)

He can plead no contest the way the law is set out or tee it up. In my opinion, "no contest" pleas are a rather luxurious option for defendants.

I actually was thinking about this today- does anyone know of any statutory authority or caselaw that would allow me to simply *refuse* to let a defendant plead nolo? Most of the time I just roll my eyes and go with it to get it off my desk, but there are some that I'd really rather try.

It's understandable from his defense attorney's point of view - the way most stipulations are written amount to a judicial confession of actual guilt in, which the client is then controverting in open court by his plea of no contest. When I was defending and had a case where the defendant insisted on pleading no contest (which was rare) and the DA and judge were okay with it, i usually just marked through the "judicially confesses to the following facts as true and correct" line and wrote "admits if this case proceeded to trial that the evidence would establish" underneath and had all initial, which generally seemed to satisfy everybody.

If you'd prefer something a little neater, this form looks compatible with a no contest plea:

http://www.co.hill.tx.us/ips/export/sites/hill/downloads/misc-stpofevidence.pdf

As far as authority for refuse a no contest plea, I always thought (even defending) that a plea offer was purely contingent on whatever terms the prosecutor wanted to agree to. If you don't want to make an offer if the defendant's going to plead no contest, who says you have to?

Edited to add: I just saw that the OP was from the Jones CA. Hey, this is Britt (formerly) from Abilene.

The Perfect Plea recommends making a guilty plea and judicial confession a part of every plea bargain. A no contest plea is an invitation to trouble, especially for a felony case.

BBurks:

No need for statutory / caselaw authority to reject a "nolo" plea request, since you want to tee the cases up. Simply don't waive the State's right to jury trial.

You make the conditions of the plea. They can either accept your conditions -- including a plea of guilty -- or they can take it to trial. We don't do nolo pleas in my county either.

On open pleas, without an agreement on punishment, I prefer a "No Contest" plea. Just call witnesses to prove-up the indictment, the most aggravating facts, and the most graphic pictures. Then in punishment the defense is not able to argue acceptance of responsibility.

Given that most of our defendant elect the judge for punishment, the only benefit to the State in not waiving a jury is it prevents a deferred adjudication.

I don't think a plea of no contest prevents the defendant from arguing he is taking responsibility. The legal purpose of a no contest plea is to prevent the plea and judgment from being used in a related civil case. In all other respects, a plea of no contest has the same consequence as a plea of guilty.

For a detailed discussion, see pages 30-31, The Perfect Plea (TDCAA 2008).

Admittedly, most defendants view a no contest plea as an "I-didn't-really-do-it" statement, but that is not the legal view.