Opinion issued January 26, 2006
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-05-00407-CR
ORLANDO CASAREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 179th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 941091
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Orlando Casarez, was charged by indictment with the aggravated sexual assault of a child. Appellant pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation by the State, and the trial court assessed punishment at 25 years in prison. On appeal, appellant challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant waived his right to a trial by jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. There is no reporter’s record of appellant’s hearing. Appellant has initialed and signed all relevant parts of the admonishments with regard to guilty pleas and sex-offender-registration requirements. These forms are also signed by appellant’s trial attorney and the trial court.
DISCUSSION
In his sole point of error, appellant contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because he initialed the written admonishments with no understanding of what they meant. He complains that the admonishments are “complex and wordy” and are “more than eight pages” long. Appellant specifically complains only about his misunderstanding regarding the sex-offender-registration requirements.
In reviewing the voluntariness of a guilty plea, we view the record as a whole. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) When the record shows that the defendant received admonishments on punishment, it creates a prima facie showing that the plea was knowing and voluntary. Id.; Edwards v. State, 921 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.). The burden then shifts to the defendant to show that he entered his plea without understanding the consequences of the plea. Martinez, 981 S.W.2d at 197. Unless there is proof to the contrary in the record, we presume the regularity of the trial court’s judgment and records. Jones v. State, 77 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citing Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)).
In this case, appellant does not direct us to anything in the record to support his claim that he did not understand the admonishments. His claim that the admonishments are “complex and wordy” and more than eight pages long, without more, does not overcome the presumption of regularity. Furthermore, the sex-offender-registration admonishments, the specific subject of his complaint, are neither complex nor wordy and are in a separate document consisting of two pages, accompanied by a statement by appellant’s trial attorney that he had fully advised appellant regarding the sex-offender-registration requirements and believed that the document had been executed knowingly and voluntarily by appellant.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not carried his burden of showing that his guilty plea was involuntary. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole point of error and affirm the judgment.
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Keyes, and Hanks.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).