CHARLES FORD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion issued May 28, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00960-CR
............................
CHARLES FORD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F06-19474-W
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Morris
        In this case, Charles Ford waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. In a single issue, he complains his guilty plea was involuntary because the record fails to show he fully understood the consequences of the plea. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
        Appellant's sole issue on appeal is the involuntariness of his plea. When considering the voluntariness of a guilty plea, we must examine the entire record. See Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam). If the trial court properly admonished the defendant before the guilty plea was entered, there is a prima facie showing the plea was both knowing and voluntary. See id. The burden then shifts to the defendant to show he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea such that he suffered harm. Id.
        Here, the record shows the trial court properly admonished appellant in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2007); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). Moreover, during the plea hearing, appellant testified he understood the trial court granted the State's motion to reduce the charges from murder to the lesser- included offense of aggravated assault. Appellant testified he understood the punishment range and was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty to the aggravated assault charges. During the sentencing hearing, appellant testified he went over the written admonishments with counsel and understood them, and again testified he was freely and voluntarily entering a guilty plea.
        Nowhere in the record does appellant demonstrate he was harmed or misled by the admonishments or that he was unaware of the consequences of his plea. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(c). Appellant has failed to show he entered his plea involuntarily. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          
                                                          JOSEPH B. MORRIS
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070960F.U05