Joseph Celeste Brown v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Joseph Celeste Brown

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00027-CR -- Appeal from Harris County

State of Texas

Appellee

Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery. The trial court assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of 10 years. Appellant asserts in his sole point of error that the trial court failed to provide him with the admonishments required by TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2002) prior to accepting his guilty plea. We affirm.

Article 26.13 requires a trial court to give certain admonishments before accepting a plea of guilty. See Article 26.13(a). The trial court must admonish the defendant of: (1) the punishment range; (2) the fact that any sentencing recommendation made by the State is not binding on the court; (3) the limited right to appeal; (4) the possibility of deportation; and (5) the possibility of registration requirements for a sexual offender. See Article 26.13(a). The admonishments may be made either orally or in writing. See Article 26.13(d). If the admonishments are made in writing, the court must receive a statement signed by the defendant and his lawyer that the defendant understood the admonitions and was aware of the consequences of the guilty plea. See Article 26.13(d). Substantial compliance with Article 26.13 is sufficient unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea or was harmed or misled by the admonishment. See Article 26.13(c); Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Cr.App.1998). A record showing that the trial court properly admonished the defendant is prima facie proof that the defendant entered into a knowing and voluntary plea. See Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.App. - Dallas 1997, pet=n ref'd).

The reporter s record filed in this cause does not include a transcription of any oral admonishments given to appellant by the trial court. The clerk s record originally filed in this cause contains two pages of a four-page document entitled ADMONISHMENTS. The two pages that were originally filed do not bear the signatures of appellant or his trial counsel. Appellant bases his appellate complaint on these omissions. Subsequent to the filing of appellant s brief, the complete ADMONISHMENTS document has been filed with this court in a supplemental clerk s record. The complete document sets forth the admonishments required by Article 26.13(a) accompanied by appellant s initials written next to each individual admonishment. The document further states that appellant read and understood the trial court s admonishments set out in the document and that he waived the right to have the trial court orally admonish him. The document concludes with the sworn signature of appellant and the signatures of the prosecutor, appellant s trial counsel, and the presiding judge. The record, therefore, reflects that the trial court properly admonished appellant as required by Article 26.13(a). Moreover, appellant does not allege any harm which he suffered as a result of the trial court s purported failure to properly admonish him. The failure toadmonish a defendant is not automatic reversible error and is subject to harm analysis. Aguirre-Mata v. State, 992 S.W.2d 495, 498-99 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). Appellant s sole point of error is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

W. G. ARNOT, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

November 21, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.