Jose V. Garcia v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-98-00061-CR
Jose V. GARCIA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 97-CR-2854
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 12, 1998

AFFIRMED

Jose V. Garcia pled guilty to first-degree murder and, pursuant to a plea bargain, received a thirty-year prison sentence. On appeal, Garcia contends he pled involuntarily, and thereby suffered violation of his due process rights, because the trial court wholly failed to warn him he could be excluded from admission to the country or denied naturalization See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(4) (Vernon 1989). This, he argues, is constitutional error requiring reversal without any analysis of harm. See Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753, 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Because the trial court did admonish him of these consequences, we affirm.

The record reveals the trial court admonished Garcia both orally and in writing.(1) With the assistance of a Spanish language interpreter, the trial court inquired of Garcia whether he understood the document entitled "Court's Admonishment and Defendant's Waivers and Affidavit of Admonitions." The written admonishment explains that a noncitizen's guilty plea could result in "deportation, exclusion from admission to this country, or denial of naturalization under federal law." Garcia stated he understood the document and signed it. In addition, the trial court explained in open court that Garcia would most certainly be deported upon completion of his prison sentence.

The Code of Criminal Procedure permits the trial court to admonish a defendant either orally or in writing. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(d) (Vernon 1989). If the court admonishes a defendant in writing, it must receive the defendant's signed statement indicating comprehension of the admonishments and the consequences of pleading guilty. Id. Because the trial court followed this procedure, we hold it properly admonished Garcia.

In light of this holding, the burden shifts to Garcia to show he pled guilty without understanding the consequences of his plea and, as a result, suffered harm. See Fuentes v. State, 688 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Because Garcia makes no such showing, we overrule his points of error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. The Honorable Pat Priest presided over the guilty plea hearing.

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions