Silva v. State

Full title: ANTONIO TAPIA SILVA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jun 6, 2005

Nos. 05-04-01236-CR, 05-04-01237-CR, 05-04-01238-CR, 05-04-01239-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 6, 2005)

Opinion

Nos. 05-04-01236-CR, 05-04-01237-CR, 05-04-01238-CR, 05-04-01239-CR

Opinion issued June 6, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-35677-QN, F03-35678-QN, F03-35679-QN, F03-35680-QN. Affirmed.

Before Justices MORRIS, LANG, and MAZZANT.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MORRIS, Justice.

In these cases, Antonio Tapia Silva waived a jury trial and entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by not orally admonishing him about the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas, rendering the pleas involuntary. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of the case 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 his sole point of error, appellant complains the trial court failed to admonish him about the deportation consequences of his plea. A trial court may deliver its admonitions in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon 1989 Supp. 2004-05); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). Here, the record shows the trial court admonished appellant in writing about the deportation consequences of his plea. At trial, appellant testified through an interpreter that he understood the papers he had signed and that he had read, discussed with his attorney, and understood the trial court's written admonitions. 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 admonishments given. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(c); Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). We conclude appellant's complaint is without merit and overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgments.