Nam Hoai Tran v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-99-00485-CR

Nam Hoai TRAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 99-CR-0706-B

Honorable Phil A. Kazan, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 6, 2000

AFFIRMED

Nam Hoai Tran pled guilty, with a plea recommendation, to the felony offense of possession of marijuana. The trial court assessed punishment at two years confinement and a $1000 fine. On appeal, Tran asserts his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Because we find that Tran's plea was knowing and voluntary, we affirm.

ANALYSIS

The voluntariness of a guilty plea is determined by the totality of the circumstances. Crawford v. State, 890 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1994, no pet.). Proper admonishment by the trial court creates a prima facie showing that a guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Id. The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that he did not understand the consequences of his plea. Id. Further, when a defendant indicates at the plea hearing that he understands the nature of the proceeding and is pleading guilty because the allegations in the indictment are true, not because of any outside pressure or influence, he has a heavy burden to prove on appeal that his plea was involuntary. Id.

Here, the plea agreement called for two years confinement, a $1000 fine, and the State would remain silent on Tran's request for community supervision. Tran was properly admonished concerning the consequences of his plea. Nevertheless, he contends he would not have pled guilty if he had known the plea bargain was for confinement at the maximum number of years. Therefore, he concludes his plea was not voluntary or knowing.

Tran signed the Court Admonishments and the Plea Bargain, both of which set forth the punishment range. The Plea Bargain stated that punishment would be assessed at two years, and the line next to this statement was checked. At the plea hearing, the trial court specifically asked Tran whether he understood that the punishment range for the offense was confinement of not less than 180 days and not more than two years, and a maximum fine of $10,000. Tran replied that he understood the punishment range, and he stated he signed and understood the Court Admonishments. The trial court read the terms of the plea bargain and asked Tran if he understood the agreement. Tran replied that he did. At the sentencing hearing, nearly two months later, Tran did not assert his plea was not voluntary or knowing. In his motion for new trial, Tran contended that if he had known he would receive the maximum jail time, he "would have gone about [his] case a different way."

There is nothing in the record to support Tran's contentions. The trial court fully admonished Tran and informed him that the matter of punishment was solely up to the court. Tran indicated that he understood and agreed. Tran has not met his burden of proving that his plea was involuntary or unknowing. There is no evidence that Tran did not know the terms of his plea bargain called for punishment of two years confinement. A guilty plea is not involuntary simply because the sentence exceeded what the appellant expected. West v. State, 702 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Tran has not sustained his burden on appeal.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH