Jack Waylon Chisum v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-02-00110-CR
Jack Waylon CHISUM,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2001-CR-1404
Honorable Juanita Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2003

AFFIRMED

Appellant Jack Wayne Chisum appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated (third offense) and as a habitual offender. After a jury trial ended in a mistrial, appellant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement and was sentenced to 10 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $1000 fine. Appellant filed a notice of appeal indicating his appeal was based on the trial court's ruling of a written motion. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction in the instant matter because a prior conviction which the State needed to prove for enhancement purposes is void. Specifically, appellant contends that the judgment in cause number 736597 entered on or about July 20, 2000 is void because appellant was not admonished as required by article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by the county court prior to entering his no contest plea and because the county court failed to sign off on the admonishments.

Texas courts have consistently held that article 26.13 applies only to felony guilty pleas. State v. Jimenez, 987 S.W.2d 886, 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Alvear v. State, 25 S.W.3d 241, 246 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2000, no pet.); Shipley v. State, 828 S.W.2d 475, 480 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, pet. ref'd); Gibson v. State, 747 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1988, no pet.). Appellant's conviction in cause number 736597 constituted a class A misdemeanor. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 49.09(a) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Accordingly, article 26.13 would not have applied.

Even assuming article 26.13 would apply, the record reflects the trial court properly admonished appellant. Under article 26.13, if a trial court makes admonishments in writing, "it must receive a statement signed by the defendant and the defendant's attorney that he understands the admonitions and is aware of the consequences of his plea." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 23.16(d) (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2002) (emphasis added). The record contains a signed "Defendant's Waiver of Constitutional Rights and Court's Admonishments" by appellant. The document contained the

requisite admonishments provided by article 26.13. Accordingly, the record reflects appellant was properly admonished and that the trial court received appellant's written admonishments.

Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH