Summary
applying Kuyava to contention that defendant's plea was involuntary because he was either under influence or had withdrawal symptoms from narcotics at time of plea, and even though court had no duty to inquire into competency, it did so and concluded that evidence supported finding that plea was freely and voluntarily made
Summary of this case from Cooper v. StateOpinion
No. 08-03-00169-CR.
February 26, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 363rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas, (Tc#F-0274284-Jw).
Before Panel No. 4: BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and McCLURE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard Lance Wright appeals his conviction for burglary of habitation, to which he pleaded guilty. He asserts the court erred by allowing the State to amend its motion to revoke probation on the day of his hearing, and that his plea of guilty was not voluntary because he was suffering from severe drug addiction withdrawal at the time of the hearing. We affirm.
Factual Summary
In June of 2002, Wright negotiated a plea on two counts of burglary of a habitation, received a ten-year probated sentence, and was ordered to complete the Special Alternative Incarceration Program, informally known as boot camp. After boot camp, the court suspended Wright's sentence and placed him on six years' community supervision in each case. On December 4, 2002, the State filed motions to revoke Wright's community supervision for failing to report and failing to pay fines and restitution. On December 19, 2002, the State charged Wright with three new counts of burglary of a habitation. On January 23, 2003, the State filed an amended motion to revoke probation that included the newly-charged offenses. On the same day, Wright pleaded guilty to the new charges and true to the allegations in the amended motion to revoke probation. In that hearing, the judge made all required judicial inquiries and admonitions, including:Q: Have you ever gone to a mental hospital?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: You ever been seen by a psychiatrist?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: Do you think you are competent?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: You understand what's going on. You been able to help your lawyer get ready for trial.
A: (Wright's counsel) Yes, ma'am.
Q: You understand the proceedings against you.
A: Yes.
Q: If you understand all that, then you are competent. Do you think you are competent?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: You think your client is competent?
A: (Wright's counsel) Yes.Wright told the judge that he began taking drugs three years earlier after being sexually assaulted by his stepfather. He said he had taken PCP and cocaine and had committed the burglaries to pay for the drugs. The court revoked Wright's probation on the two earlier cases and accepted his plea of guilty on two of the new cases. He was sentenced to eight years on each charge.
Wright Waived Right to Appeal Amended Revocation Motion
In his first point of error, Wright asserts he is entitled to a new revocation proceeding because no good cause was shown by the State for amending the motions to revoke on the day of the revocation hearing. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12, section 21(b) states:In a felony case, the state may amend the motion to revoke community supervision any time up to seven days before the date of the revocation hearing, after which time the motion may not be amended except for good cause shown, and in no event may the state amend the motion after the commencement of taking evidence at the hearing. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004).However, there is nothing in the code that says a defendant cannot waive his right to a good cause showing. A reading of the record shows the amended motions were filed some time before the trial court began questioning Wright, so it cannot be asserted that it was filed after the commencement of taking evidence at the hearing. There are no objections in the record to the amended motions. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure rule 33.1 requires that as a prerequisite to appellate review, the record must show that a complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection or motion. There was no such complaint. Rather, Wright admitted that he committed the crimes and that he violated his probation. His testimony and judicial confessions alone are enough to support the revocations. As Wright has not preserved the issue for appellate review, we overrule his first point of error.