Opinion
Nos. 05-03-01663-CR, 05-03-01667-CR, 05-03-01668-CR, 05-03-01669-CR
Opinion Filed September 28, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-72317-HK, F03-72106-UK, F03-72222-HK, F03-72224-UK. Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Phillip Robinson, Jr. appeals four convictions for burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003). In each case, appellant waived a jury trial, entered a non-negotiated guilty plea before the court, and pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court found appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, and sentenced him to life imprisonment in each case. In four points of error, appellant contends his guilty pleas were involuntary because the trial court failed to admonish him properly. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Appellant argues his guilty pleas were involuntary because he did not understand the consequences of his guilty pleas. Appellant claims he was harmed and misled because the court did not explain what an open plea meant. Appellant argues he believed he was subject to only the thirty-five-year sentence which previously had been offered by the State. The State responds the record shows appellant voluntarily entered open guilty pleas to each charged offense and pleas of true to two enhancement paragraphs in each case and that the trial court properly admonished appellant. During the plea hearing, the trial judge orally admonished appellant that the punishment range for each offense was twenty-five to ninety-nine years or life imprisonment. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Appellant testified he understood the charges in each indictment and understood the punishment range for the offenses. Appellant testified he discussed the documents in these cases with counsel before signing them, and he was voluntarily pleading guilty to the charges in each indictment and true to the second and third paragraphs in each indictment. Appellant's signed judicial confessions and stipulations of evidence were offered into evidence without objection, as was appellant's signed pleas of true to the enhancement paragraphs. At the sentencing hearing, appellant testified he voluntarily waived a jury trial; he understood the trial judge previously had placed him on deferred adjudication probation in two other cases and that he could get a life sentence if the judge found he had violated his probation; and he understood that committing additional burglaries subjected him to a life sentence. After the trial judge pronounced the life sentences in each case, appellant complained about not getting the thirty-five-year sentence he believed he would receive. The trial judge reminded appellant there were no plea bargain agreements in these cases, appellant rejected the State's offer and came open to the court, and that the judge had explained the punishment range in light of the enhancement paragraphs. Nothing in the record shows appellant was not aware of the consequences of his guilty pleas and that he was harmed or misled by the trial judge's admonishments. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(c); Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). The fact that appellant received greater punishment than he hoped for does not render his pleas involuntary. See Tovar-Torres v. State, 860 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.). We overrule appellant's points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.