BRADFORD D. SIMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed October 25, 2010.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00460-CR
............................
BRADFORD D. SIMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F09-72135-VK
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Moseley
        Bradford D. Sims waived a jury, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery of an elderly person, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in the indictment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02(a)(1), 29.03(a)(3)(A) (West 2003). After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisonment and a $1000 fine. In a single issue, appellant contends his guilty plea was involuntary. We affirm. The background of this 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 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.
        Appellant contends he entered a guilty plea only because he believed the trial court would grant him deferred community supervision and drug treatment for his heroin addiction. The State responds that appellant failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court properly admonished appellant before accepting the guilty 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 a defendant before a guilty plea was entered, there is a prima facie showing the plea was both knowing and voluntary. See id.
        Here, the record shows the trial court properly admonished appellant both orally and in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (c) (West Supp. 2010); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). During the plea hearing, appellant testified he understood the charges in the indictment, the punishment range for the offense, and the punishment range if the trial court found the enhancement paragraph true. Appellant said he was entering pleas of guilty to the charges in the indictment and true to the enhancement paragraph, and that he understood the trial court could assess his punishment from fifteen years to life imprisonment. Appellant's signed judicial confession and stipulation of evidence was admitted into evidence. See Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (it is well settled that a judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea). Appellant told the trial court he was using heroin at the time he committed the offense, and he asked the trial court for probation and drug treatment for his longstanding heroin addiction.
        Nothing in the record shows appellant believed he would necessarily receive probation and drug treatment. The fact that he received greater punishment than he hoped for does not render his plea involuntary. See Tovar-Torres v. State, 860 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.). We conclude appellant the trial court did not err in accepting appellant's plea. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100460F.U05