Jeffrey Kyle Stephens v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Williamson County

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-94-00417-CR
Jeffrey Kyle Stephens, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 93-38765-2, HONORABLE ROBERT F. B. MORSE, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

 

Appellant pleaded guilty to possessing less than two ounces of marihuana. Controlled Substances Act, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, sec. 1, 481.121, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230, 2939 (Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.121, since amended). The county court at law initially deferred adjudication and placed appellant on probation. The court subsequently revoked the deferred adjudication probation, adjudged appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at incarceration for six months and a $1000 fine. The court suspended imposition of sentence and again placed appellant on probation.

Appellant waived counsel at trial. In his first point of error, appellant contends the court erred by failing to admonish him of the dangers of self-representation. A misdemeanor defendant who appears without counsel to confess his guilt need not be admonished of the disadvantages of self-representation. Cooper v. State, 854 S.W.2d 303, 304 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, no pet.). Moreover, the judgment recites that "the defendant, after being warned, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel." There is nothing in the appellate record, which does not contain a statement of facts, to contradict this recital. Point of error one is overruled.

Appellant also contends the court erred by failing to admonish him regarding the range of punishment attached to the offense. We will assume without deciding that due process requires such an admonishment. McMillan v. State, 703 S.W.2d 341, 343-44 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1985), rev'd, 727 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). At the time he entered his plea of guilty, appellant signed a document acknowledging that he was "admonished as to the nature and elements of the offense you are charged with having committed and the range of punishment for that offense." This recital, which is also uncontradicted, is sufficient to demonstrate that appellant was advised of the punishment range. McMillan, 727 S.W.2d at 584. Point of error two is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones

Affirmed

Filed: June 21, 1995

Do Not Publish