CHARLES ROY MILLER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

Affirmed in part; Affirmed as Modified in part; Opinion Filed November 24, 2008.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01399-CR
No. 05-07-01400-CR
No. 05-07-01401-CR
No. 05-07-01402-CR
 
............................
CHARLES ROY MILLER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F01-02430-TJ, F04-26552-TLJ, F07-43842-QJ, F07-52421-SJ
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
        Charles Roy Miller appeals following adjudication of guilt in two cases and findings of guilt in two other cases. In five points of error, appellant contends the judgment should be modified in one case to reflect appellant's plea of true, and that the trial court erred in all four cases by failing to admonish appellant on the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas. We affirm the trial court's judgments in cause nos. 05-07-01399-CR, 05-07-01401-CR, and 05-07-01402-CR, and we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified in cause no. 05-07-01400-CR.
Background
 
        In cause nos. 05-07-01399-CR and 05-07-01400-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to assault-family violence, with a prior assault-family violence conviction, and possession of methamphetamine in an amount of 400 grams or more. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2008); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (f) (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on ten years' community supervision. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, including committing new offenses. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court granted the motions, adjudicated appellant guilty in each case, and assessed punishment at five years' imprisonment for the assault conviction and fifteen years' imprisonment for the possession of methamphetamine conviction.
        In cause no. 05-07-01401-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $1500 or more, but less than $20,000. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A). In cause no. 05-07-01402-CR, appellant waived a jury, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (d). The trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a State jail facility and a $500 fine for the theft conviction and five years' imprisonment and a $500 fine for the possession of cocaine conviction.
Deportation Admonishments
 
        In his second, third, fourth, and fifth points of error, appellant contends that because nothing in the record shows his citizenship or immigration status, the trial court erred in failing to orally admonish him on the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas. The State responds that this Court does not have jurisdiction to address appellant's complaints in the first two cases and, in all four cases, the records reflect appellant is a citizen of the United States and the trial court properly admonished him in writing about the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas.
        We agree that we do not have jurisdiction to address appellant's complaints in cause nos. 05- 07-01399-CR and 05-07-01400-CR. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication probation may raise issues related to the original plea proceedings only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication probation is first imposed. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see also Clark v. State, 997 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). We overrule appellant's second and third points of error.
        In cause nos. 05-07-01401-CR and 05-07-01402-CR, the records show the trial court admonished appellant in writing about the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas. A trial court may deliver its admonitions in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2008); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). At trial, appellant testified he understood the papers he had signed and understood the trial court's written admonitions. Moreover, a supplemental clerk's record shows that when appellant was arrested for these offenses, he stated he was a United States citizen. Nothing in the record shows appellant was not aware of the consequences of his guilty pleas or that he was harmed or misled by the admonishments given. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(c); Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). We overrule appellant's fourth and fifth points of error.
Modify Judgment
 
        In his first point of error, appellant contends the judgment in cause no. 05-07-01400-CR should be modified to show he entered a plea of true to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. Because the record shows appellant pleaded true to the allegations while the written judgment recites he entered a plea of not true, we sustain appellant's first point of error. We modify the trial court's judgment to show appellant pleaded true to the motion to adjudicate. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd.).
Conclusion
 
        In cause nos. 05-07-01399-CR, 05-07-01401-CR, and 05-07-01402-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgments. In cause no. 05-07-01400-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
071399F.U05
 
 

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.