Opinion
No. 05-02-01367-CR.
Opinion issued June 10, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F01-01588-HI. AFFIRMED.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS AND Justices WHITTINGTON and RICHTER.
OPINION
Calah Raynard Johnson appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 46.04 (Vernon 2003). Appellant waived a jury trial, entered a non-negotiated guilty plea, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. The trial judge found the enhancement paragraph true and sentenced appellant to eight years' confinement. In a single point of error, appellant contends his guilty plea was involuntary because he believed the judge would defer adjudication of guilt. The State responds the record does not show any misinformation rendered appellant's plea involuntary, and appellant was properly admonished by the trial judge. We agree with the State, and overrule appellant's point of error. The record shows the trial judge properly admonished appellant orally and in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon 1989 Supp. 2003); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). At the plea hearing, appellant testified he understood the charges in the indictment and the punishment range for the offense in light of the enhancement paragraph. He also testified he understood the judge would sentence him to any term within the punishment range, he was pleading guilty because he was guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment, and he knowingly and voluntarily signed a judicial confession. The trial judge passed the case for a presentence investigation report. During closing argument at the sentencing hearing, appellant's counsel asked the trial judge to give appellant either outpatient or inpatient drug treatment or give appellant ten years deferred adjudication probation. Nothing in the record shows appellant believed the trial judge would defer adjudicating guilt and place him on probation. We conclude appellant has not shown he 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) (Vernon 1989); 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 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 point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.