Opinion
No. 05-03-00552-CR.
Opinion Filed February 23, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F02-35848-JN. Affirmed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and RICHTER.
OPINION
Raymond K. Davis, Sr. waived a jury trial, entered an open guilty plea to burglary of a habitation, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003). The trial court found appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraph true, and assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement and a $2500 fine. In a single issue, appellant contends his plea was involuntary because the sentence exceeded the State's punishment recommendation. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant argues the State's recommendation on punishment was ten years in the penitentiary and a $2000 fine, and the trial court's sentence in excess of that rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Appellant claims he could not anticipate that the court would not follow the State's recommendation. Appellant asserts he would not have entered a guilty plea if he had known the trial court would assess a sentence and fine that exceeded the State's recommendation. The State responds the sentence imposed by the trial court did not render appellant's plea involuntary simply because it exceeded appellant's expectations. The record shows the trial judge properly admonished appellant both orally and in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon Supp. 2004); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). During the plea hearing, appellant testified he understood the charges in the indictment and understood the punishment range for the offense in light of the enhancement paragraph. Appellant also testified he understood he was "going open to the court" because there was no plea bargain agreement, and the trial court could sentence him to any term within the punishment range. Appellant testified he voluntarily signed a judicial confession, he was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty to the charges in the indictment because he was guilty and for no other reason, and he was freely and voluntarily pleading true to the enhancement paragraph. The trial court passed the case for a presentence investigation report. During the sentencing hearing, appellant testified he voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges in the indictment and true to the enhancement paragraph. Appellant testified he understood the trial court could grant him probation or sentence him to any term from five to ninety-nine years or life in the penitentiary. Appellant asked the trial judge to give him drug treatment. Nothing in the record shows appellant was not aware of the consequences of his plea and 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 trial court was not bound by the State's recommendation, and nothing in the record reflects appellant believed the judge would follow the recommendation. The fact that appellant received greater punishment than he hoped for does not render his plea involuntary. See Tovar-Torres v. State, 860 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.). Accordingly, we overrule appellant's sole issue on appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.