Fidel Ramirez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 7 of Bexar County

No. 04-98-00506-CR
Fidel RAMIREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court of Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 658,383
Honorable Bill C. White, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 16, 1998

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Fidel Ramirez, was charged by information and complaint with the offense of assault causing bodily injury. Ramirez plead "no contest" to the charge, and was convicted in a bench trial and sentenced to two years probation plus payment of a $300.00 fine. In one point of error, Ramirez contends the trial court erred in failing to admonish him in accordance with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989).

Texas courts have consistently held that trial courts are not required to provide misdemeanor defendants with article 26.13 admonishments. Johnson v. State, 614 S.W.2d 116, 120 n. 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh'g); McGuire v. State, 617 S.W.2d 259, 261 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Simply put, article 26.13 requires admonishments only in felony cases and does not apply to misdemeanor cases. In Johnson, Judge Teague wrote:

However commendable it may be for a trial judge to admonish one accused of a misdemeanor offense, as he must where a person is charged with a felony, see Article 26.13, V.A.T.C.C.P., ... there is no requirement in Texas law for a trial court to admonish an accused person of anything if the offense is classified as a misdemeanor.

Johnson, 614 S.W.2d at 120 n. 1 (emphasis added).

The trial court did not verbally give the article 26.13 admonishments, nor was he required to do so. Nonetheless, the record contains Ramirez's signed "Defendant's Waiver of Constitutional Rights and Court's Admonitions" which tracts the language of article 26.13. Thus, voluntary compliance with the statute is established. Point of error one is overruled.

Ramirez has filed two letters with this court professing his innocence. However, there is nothing in the record before this court which challenges the voluntariness of Ramirez's plea of no contest. Basing our decision on the record, as we must, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions