Opinion
No. 05-02-01238-CR; No. 05-02-01239-CR; No. 05-02-01240-CR
Opinion Filed June 3, 2003 Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F01-23668-TN, F01-23669-KN, F01-23670-KN. AFFIRM
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and MOSELEY.
OPINION
Peter Kerry Holmes appeals three convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon 2003). In each case, appellant waived a jury trial and entered non-negotiated guilty pleas. The trial court sentenced appellant to forty years' confinement in each case. In a single point of error, appellant contends his guilty pleas were involuntary. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case. Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires a trial judge to give certain admonishments before accepting a plea of guilty, and the admonishments may be given either orally or in writing. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon 1989 Supp. 2003); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). Substantial compliance by the trial court is sufficient unless the defendant affirmatively shows he was not aware of the consequences of his pleas, or was harmed or misled by the admonishment. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(c) (Vernon 1989); Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). A record that shows the trial court properly admonished the defendant is a prima facie showing that the defendant entered into a knowing and voluntary plea. Kirk, 949 S.W.2d at 771. Appellant argues his guilty pleas were involuntary because the trial court failed to admonish him of the minimum punishment range for the offense in each case. The State responds the trial court properly admonished appellant on the full range of punishment. We agree with the State. The record shows the trial court admonished appellant orally and in writing. The trial judge specifically stated the punishment range for the offenses was "imprisonment for life or not more than 99 years or less than five years with an optional $10,00 fine." Appellant testified he understood the judge could sentence him to any term of years within the range. We conclude the trial court substantially complied with the article 26.13 requirements, and appellant has not shown he did not understand the consequences of his plea and that he was harmed or misled by the admonishment given. See Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.