Opinion
14-22-00696-CR
03-14-2024
JORDON O'NEAL VANDYKE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish-Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 92627-CR
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARGARET "MEG" POISSANT, JUSTICE
Appellant Jordon O'Neal Vandyke appeals from the trial court's order revoking his community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of the offense of assault of a peace officer. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01. In one issue, appellant argues that his original plea was involuntary because the trial court's admonishment of the punishment range for the offense was incorrect. We affirm.
I. Background
On May 6, 2021, appellant was indicted for assault on a peace officer in this underlying trial cause number. On June 16, 2021, the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea for this offense, as well as his plea for a separate offense of assault family violence by choking.[ Subject to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred finding appellant guilty and placed him on community supervision for five years.
See Vandyke v. State, No. 14-22-00697-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] March 14, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
On April 4, 2022, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision and adjudicate him guilty. On September 1, 2022, following a hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
In one issue, appellant argues that his original plea on June 16, 2021, was involuntary because the trial court's admonishment concerning the range of punishment for the offense was incorrect.
A. Applicable Law & Standard of Review
Prior to accepting a plea of guilty, the trial court must admonish the defendant of the range of punishment attached to the offense. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(1). In admonishing a defendant, however, substantial compliance by the trial court is deemed sufficient unless the defendant was not aware of the consequences of his plea and was misled or harmed by the admonishment. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(c)); Hughes v. State, 833 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see, e.g., Eatmon v. Sate, 768 S.W.2d 310, 311-312 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); see also Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197 ("Whether the given admonishments are in substantial compliance with the required warnings is an issue that should be considered when the trial court has addressed the admonishment in some form or fashion.").
Assault of a peace officer is a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b-2). The punishment range for a second-degree felony is any term of years of not more than twenty years or less than two years and a fine not to exceed $10,000.00. Id. § 12.33.
B. Analysis
During the June 16, 2021, plea-agreement hearing, the trial court admonished appellant as follows:
[Trial Court]: 92018-CR and 92627-CR. The first one is an assault family violence by choking, a third degree felony with the range of punishment of not less than 2 no more than 10 years, up to a 10,000-dollar fine. The second is a second degree felony not less than 2 up to 20 years TDC, up to a 10,000-dollar fine. Do you understand the range of punishments and why you're here?
[Appellant]: Yes, sir.
While the trial court correctly admonished appellant of the range of punishment for his two offenses, appellant argues that his plea was involuntary because the trial court did not identify that assault of a peace officer was the offense for the second punishment range admonished. Here, the trial court did not identify the offense, but correctly admonished appellant of the range of punishment for the offense of assault of a peace officer. See Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197. This substantial compliance with the required admonishment is sufficient unless appellant affirmatively shows harm. See id.
Appellant asserts that because the trial court's second admonition did not identify the corresponding offense he "clearly erroneously believed that 10-years['] incarceration was the maximum punishment he faced for this offense." We are not persuaded by this argument on the record before us.
When appellant was asked by the trial court whether he wanted to have the indictments read out loud, he waived that right. Appellant also confirmed to the trial court that he had an agreement with the prosecution for five years of deferred adjudication community supervision for each offense; that he had reviewed the plea agreements with his attorney, one of which identified the offense as "Assault Peace Officer" and further correctly stated the punishment range for the offense; that his signature appeared on this plea agreement; and that he understood its contents. See id. ("In considering the voluntariness of a guilty plea, the court should examine the record as a whole."). Finally, we note that the trial court correctly assessed appellant's punishment within both the applicable range and the admonished range when it sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33, 22.01(b-2).
We conclude that the record does not show that appellant was harmed and overrule his sole issue. See id.
III. Conclusion
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.