Opinion
No. 05-02-01887-CR
Opinion issued November 26, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F01-74662-HJ.
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and RICHTER.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this case, Jose Abrego appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant waived a jury trial and pleaded not guilty before the court. At the close of evidence, appellant changed his plea to guilty. There was no agreement as to punishment. Without admonishing appellant, the trial judge accepted appellant's guilty plea and sentenced him to ten years' confinement and a $500 fine. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to admonish him on the range of punishment and deportation consequences of his offense in accordance with article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant asks that we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial. The State concedes the trial court did not admonish appellant in accordance with article 26.13 and agrees the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded. 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. Article 26.13 of the code of criminal procedure requires the trial court to give certain admonishments before accepting a plea of guilty, and the admonishment may be given either orally or in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2004). The article 26.13(a) admonishments are required even when a defendant decides to change his plea to guilty after evidence has been presented. Id. art. 26.13(a). Substantial compliance by the trial court is sufficient unless the defendant affirmatively shows he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was harmed or misled by the admonishment. Id. art. 26.13(c). However, when the trial court wholly fails to admonish a defendant, there is no substantial compliance. See Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 656 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). In this case, the record does not show the trial court ever admonished appellant either orally or in writing in accordance with article 26.13(a) before accepting appellant's guilty plea. Nothing in the record shows appellant knew the punishment range to which he was subjected or the deportation consequences of his plea. Moreover, there is some evidence in the record showing appellant was Salvadorian. Thus, the trial court's failure to admonish appellant supports the inference that appellant did not know the consequences of his plea and that the trial court's error affected appellant's substantial rights. See Tex.R.App.P. 44.2(b); Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 636-37 (Tex.Crim. App. 2002). We sustain appellant's sole point of error. We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial.