Lloyd Wayne Lotson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0468-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 12, 2003
______________________________
LLOYD WAYNE LOTSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
NO. 85,657; HON. CHARLES D. CARVER, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Lloyd Wayne Lotson (appellant) appeals his felony conviction for burglary of a
habitation. Despite the absence of a plea bargain, appellant pled no contest to the
charges and waived his right to a jury. However, the trial court did not admonish him as
required by art. 26.13(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 Instead, it accepted
1
Requiring the trial court to admonish the defendant of various matters, including the range of
punishment, when the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere. TEX. CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN. art. 26.13
(Vernon Supp. 2004).
his plea and proceeded to try the issue of guilt, a topic appellant actually disputed. That
is, the State presented evidence of his guilt via witnesses. Appellant not only crossexamined them but also moved for a directed verdict, testified in his own defense and
presented his own witness, all in apparent effort to secure an acquittal or a favorable
sentence. The trial court eventually found appellant guilty and sentenced him to 30 years
imprisonment. Appellant then appealed. The two issues before us concern the failure of
the trial court to admonish appellant about the applicable range of punishment. According
to him, this circumstance not only warrants reversal but also constitutes a denial of due
process. We affirm the judgment.
Issue One–Failure to Comply with art. 26.13(a)
Through his first issue, appellant contends that the trial court reversibly erred
because it did not admonish him about the range of punishment applicable to the offense
after he pled no contest. We overrule the issue.
As previously mentioned, art. 26.13(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
obligates the trial court to admonish one who pleads guilty or nolo contendere of various
matters. Included within them is the range of punishment attached to the offense. TEX .
CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN . art. 26.13(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004). And, though admonishment
is required, the failure to do so does not arise to constitutional magnitude. Instead, it
implicates statute and breach of statutory edict. Thus, harm, if any, accompanying the
error is analyzed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Aguirre-Mata v. State,
No. 2115-00, 2003 WL 21077447 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2003).
Here, the State concedes that the trial court erred in omitting the admonishments.
2
Yet, it believes that the error was harmless. We agree.
Unlike the usual circumstances accompanying a guilty plea or a plea of no contest,
the appellant actually disputed his guilt. Furthermore, a trial was conducted to decide that
issue. At the proceeding, the prosecutor endeavored to prove guilt via three witnesses
while appellant mounted a defense based upon his cross-examination of those witnesses,
his own testimony and the testimony of his mother.
Furthermore, nothing of record illustrates that appellant was actually unaware of the
range of punishment that he faced or the consequences of his plea. Nor does he assert
that he was unaware of those things in his appellate brief. Instead, he 1) states that the
failure of the trial court to admonish him constituted error, 2) alludes to the trial court’s
general obligation to assure that a plea is voluntary and knowing, 3) states that he made
no statements indicating that he understood that he could be sentenced to 30 years
imprisonment, and 4) posits that his counsel’s statement that his sentence could range
from 25 years to life did not constitute substantial compliance with art. 26.13(a)(1). Yet,
again, nowhere does he deny knowing of the applicable punishment range or that his
sentence could be life imprisonment. Similarly absent is any evidence permitting one to
reasonably infer that had the trial court admonished appellant per art. 26.13(a) he would
have entered some other plea. See Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 658 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1998) (stating that to secure reversal the appellant must show that he was unaware
of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed).
In short, we have an odd situation before us. Despite representing that he did not
contest the charges, appellant contested them. So too was he afforded and did participate
3
in a trial on the merits of those charges. This, coupled with the absence of evidence
illustrating that appellant was actually ignorant of the consequences of his plea (whatever
those consequences may have been given the circumstances at bar) or would have acted
differently had he been admonished per art. 26.13(a), leaves us to conclude that his
substantial rights were not affected. Thus, he did not suffer the type of harm prerequisite
to securing reversal. See TEX . R. APP . P. 44.2(b) (stating that any error, other than
constitutional error, must be disregarded if it did not affect substantial rights).
Issue Two – Due Process
We next address whether the failure to admonish appellant about the range of
punishment deprived him of his United States Constitutional right to due process.
Appellant contends that it did. We disagree and overrule the issue.
Recently, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that federal constitutional
notions of due process do not mandate that a defendant pleading guilty be informed of the
applicable range of punishment. Aguirre-Mata v. State, No. 2115-00, 2003 WL 21077447
(Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2003). Thus, the failure to admonish someone who pleads guilty
about the range of punishment does not constitute the denial of due process. Id. We see
no reason to deviate from this holding when the defendant (like that before us) pled no
contest. Nor has appellant suggested any.
The judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Justice
4
Do not publish.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
