Billy Gene Littlepage v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Billy Gene Littlepage

Appellant

Vs. Nos. 11-03-00217-CR & 11-03-00218-CR -- Appeals from Palo Pinto County

State of Texas

Appellee

In Cause No. 11-03-00217-CR, the trial court convicted appellant, upon his open plea of guilty, of indecency with a child and assessed his punishment at 20 years confinement. In Cause No. 11-03-00218-CR, the trial court convicted appellant, upon his open plea of guilty, of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed his punishment at 40 years confinement. We affirm.

In his first and second points of error, appellant complains that the trial court erred in admonishing him on the laws for parole. Appellant pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his eight- year-old grandson. Because appellant pleaded guilty to indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault, he would not be eligible for parole until he had served one-half of his sentence. TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. 508.145(d) (Vernon 2004); TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, 3g(a)(1)(C) & (E) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005). Appellant specifically complains that the trial court erred in failing to admonish him that being eligible for parole does not mean he will receive parole.

When the trial court admonished appellant, it stated:

The kinds of offenses that are alleged in these two indictments are called aggravated or 3g offenses. Let me tell you and admonish you what a 3g offense is. It makes reference to a subsection 3g found in Article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, where certain kinds of crimes are specified. And as to those special kinds of crimes, there are special laws and rules that affect the eligibility to be considered for parole if someone is punished by confinement in prison.

It gets a little confusing, but we re going to take our time and make sure you understand all of the risks and ramifications of your pleas here today.

If someone is convicted of one of these kinds of offenses alleged against you in these indictments, and they are sentenced to a term of confinement in prison, then that person would not be eligible to be considered for parole until he or she had served at least one-half of the amount of time assessed without regard to any good time credits.

The trial court went on to admonish appellant, [Y]ou will not be eligible to be considered or ask for parole until you have served at least one-half of the amount of punishment assessed. The record does not support appellant s argument that the trial court failed to inform him of the effects of the parole laws on his conviction. Appellant s first and second points of error are overruled.

In his third point of error, appellant contends that the trial court violated the separation of powers clause of the Texas Constitution by considering the application of the parole laws in assessing sentence. Appellant argues that the trial court assessed a sentence greater than was appropriate because the trial court considered the effects of the parole laws. While the record shows that the trial court carefully explained to appellant that he would not be eligible for parole until he served one-half of his sentence, the record does not support appellant s argument that the trial court assessed a greater sentence because of the effects of the parole laws. Appellant s third point of error is overruled.

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

JIM R. WRIGHT

JUSTICE

August 4, 2005

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, J., and McCall, J.