JEFFREY ALEMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 7, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-89-00057-CR
No. 05-89-00058-CR
No. 05-89-00059-CR
    
No. 05-89-00060-CR
No. 05-89-00061-CR
............................
JEFFREY ALEMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F88-96130-JK, F88-96131-JK,
F88-96132-JK, F88-96133-JK, and F88-96134-JK
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Enoch and Justices Baker and Whittington
        Jeffrey Aleman appeals his convictions for one case of burglary of a motor vehicle and four cases of aggravated robbery. Punishment was assessed at ten years' confinement in the burglary case and at twelve years' confinement in each of the four robbery cases.
        Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which appellant's attorney has concluded that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given the opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Counsel has advanced as one arguable point that appellant's guilty pleas were involuntarily entered because the trial court did not fully and completely admonish appellant of the consequences of entering his pleas of guilty. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
        Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that prior to accepting a plea of guilty the trial court shall admonish the defendant of, among other things, the range of punishment attached to the offense. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(1) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 1989). The Code further provides that substantial compliance with the admonishment requirements is sufficient, unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(c) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 1989). Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to admonish him "as to the full consequences of attempting to convince the Court to assess a nonadjudicated probation in a case in which a defendant has four aggravated robberies and a burglary of a motor vehicle charged against him."
        The trial court correctly admonished appellant that in the aggravated robbery cases he would not be eligible for the court to assess "regular probation," and that it would be up to the court to determine whether to give deferred adjudication. Appellant stated that he understood this admonishment. There is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant was led to believe tht he would receive deferred adjudication upon the entry of his guilty pleas. There is, generally, no duty to admonish a defendant who is eligible for probation that he might not receive probation. Brown v. State, 478 S.W.2d 550, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). We conclude that there is also no duty to admonish an eligible defendant that he might not receive deferred adjudication probation.
        Having reviewed the admonishments given by the trial court, we conclude that the court substantially complied with the requirements of article 26.13. Further, appellant has failed to establish that he was not aware of the consequences of his pleas and that he was misled or harmed by the trial court's admonishments. Accordingly, we overrule the arguable point of error.
        We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.
        The judgments are affirmed.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
 
8900057.U05
 
 
File Date[11-06-89]
File Name[890057]