Cobourn, David v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AIF1 I{NI; Opinion issued January 31, 2013 In The nitrt nf ipra1 FiftIi Jitrirt uf cxwi at 1a11a No. 05-1 1-001 73-CR DAVID NEGUS COBOURN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 10-58452-1 from MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley. Francis, and Lang Opinion By Justice Francis David Negus Cobourn appeals his conviction for evading arrest or detention after having been convicted previously of the same offense. Appellant pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, at four years and six months in prison. In two issues. appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to admonish him on the range of possible punishments on pleas of true to enhancement allegations and the evidence is insufficient to connect him to the second prior conviction. We affirm. In his first issue, appellant claims the trial court failed to admonish him on the applicable range of punishment on his pleas ot true to the two enhancement paragraphs. He argues his pleas were theretbre involuntary and the error was not harmless because nothing in the record indicates he was aware of the punishment range. ihe lexas (ode ot Criminal Procedure requires a trial court to admonish a (ielendant in a hlony case on the applicable range of punishment hefire accepting a plea ol guilty or nob contendere: it does not, however. apply to a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph. See TEx. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13( )(1) (West Supp. 2012); Sylvester r Slate, 615 S.W.2d 734, 736 37 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.j 1981). An admonishment on the punishment range for a plea of true is discretionary with the trial court and is not required under Texas law. Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108, 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh g). Appellant pleaded not guilty to the primary offense in this case: therefore, he was not given the admonishments associated with entering a guilty plea. After the jury Found him guilty, appellant then pleaded true to the two enhancements. No error resulted from the trial court s failure to admonish appellant with respect to the punishment range associated with his pleas of true. and his pleas were not involuntary. Furthermore, we note that, after appellant was arraigned, defense counsel informed the trial court appellant s request for a ninemonth plea oiler had been denied. The trial court replied, Okay. And [the range is] 2 to 10? Defense counsel responded that it was. And during voir dire, both defense counsel and the State referred to appellant s punishment range being potentially two to ten years because of the two prior tilony conviction enhancements. Thus, appellant knew the enhanced range of punishment before pleading true to the enhancement paragraphs. We overrule appellant s first issue. In his second issue. appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to connect him to the second prior conviction. Appellant argues the State was required to prove the second prior conviction because his picas of true were involuntary. It is the States burden to prose an ii leged prior conviction was a final conviction and the defendant was the person previously convicted of that offense. Wilson v. State. 671 SW2d 524, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). lithe defendant pleads true to the enhancement paragraph, the State s burden of proof is satisfied. Id. Because appellant voluntarily pleaded true to the two enhancement paragraphs, the States burden was met. Appellants complaint to the contrary lacks merit. We overrule appellant s second issue. We affirm the trial court s judgment. /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. Aip. P. 47 1101 73F.U05 3 _niirt iii ipra1 Fiftii 1itrirt uf rxai at 1a11a JUDGMENT l)AVID NEGUS COI3OURN. Appellant No. 05-1 1-00173-CR V THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F it) 58452-I). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Moseley and Lang participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered January 31. 2013 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
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.
