Opinion
No. 05-14-00986-CR No. 05-14-00987-CR
04-29-2015
JONATHAN LEE WRIGHT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-34526-X, F07-34527-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Brown and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Stoddart
Following the adjudication of his guilt, Jonathan Lee Wright appeals from two convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court reversibly erred in not admonishing him of the punishment range during the hearing on the motions to adjudicate guilt. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years in each case. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2014). Pursuant to plea agreements in each case, the trial court deferred adjudication, placed appellant on ten years' community supervision, and assessed a $1,000 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to four of the five allegations; however, the trial court denied the motions to adjudicate, and continued appellant on community supervision, amending the conditions. The State later again moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. In a hearing on the motions, appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment in each case.
In his sole issue, appellant contends his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court failed to admonish him regarding the applicable punishment range before accepting his pleas of true to the motions to adjudicate. Appellant argues nothing shows he fully understood the punishment range to which he would be subjected upon adjudication of his guilt and he was harmed by the trial court's failure to admonish him. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to admonish appellant about the punishment range before accepting his pleas of true because it had no duty to do so. We agree with the State.
A trial court must admonish a defendant as to the range of punishment for an offense prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2014). The admonishments required by article 26.13 do not apply to community supervision revocation proceedings. See Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304, 309-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
Moreover, the record shows that the trial court correctly admonished appellant about the punishment range for a first-degree felony offense. Appellant acknowledged he understood the range of punishment for the offenses. Nothing in the record reflects that appellant did not understand that the full range of punishment was available to the trial court once it adjudicated appellant guilty. We overrule appellant's sole issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgments.
/ Craig Stoddart/
CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
140986F.U05
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F07-34526-X).
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Chief Justice Wright and Justice Brown participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F07-34527-X).
Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, Chief Justice Wright and Justice Brown participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED.