Opinion
Nos. 05-09-00037-CR, 05-09-00038-CR
Opinion Filed February 26, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F04-41719-PK, F08-72294-QK.
Before Justices O'NEILL, LANG, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Greg Anthony Antillon appeals his convictions for burglary of a habitation and burglary of a building. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to admonish him about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea in each case. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of these cases 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 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. In cause no. 05-09-00037-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at five years' imprisonment, probated for five years, and a $1500 fine. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, including committing a new burglary offense. Appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in a hearing on the motion. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at five years' imprisonment. In cause no. 05-09-00038-CR, appellant pleaded true to burglary of a building. See id. The trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility and a $750 fine. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court violated article 26.13 by failing to admonish him about the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas. Appellant asserts the record is silent regarding his citizenship, and it supports an inference that he did not know the consequences of his pleas. The State responds that this court does not have jurisdiction to address appellant's complaint in one case, and the trial court properly admonished appellant in the other case. A trial court may deliver its admonishments in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2009); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). In cause no. 05-09-00038-CR, the record shows the trial court admonished appellant in writing about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. Moreover, because the record shows appellant stated during his arraignment that he was a United States citizen, he was not subject to deportation. Further, 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). In cause no. 05-09-00037-CR, appellant's complaint regarding a deportation admonishment is untimely. Appellant did not complain about the admonishments at the original plea hearing when he was placed on community supervision, and may not do so now. See Manual v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Moreover, the article 26.13 admonishments do not apply to revocation of community supervision proceedings. See Harris v. State, 505 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). We overrule appellant's two points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.