Opinion issued November 18, 2010
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-09-00597-CR
———————————
JUNIOR ARISTY RICHIEZ, Appellant
V.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1207048
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Junior Aristy Richiez pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation to possession of a controlled substance, heroin, weighing more than 400 grams.[1] The trial court assessed punishment at 12 years’ imprisonment. Appellant brings a single issue, contending his guilty plea was not voluntary and the trial court erred in not allowing him to withdraw the plea. We affirm.
The State originally indicted appellant for delivery of a controlled substance, heroin, weighing more than 400 grams. In connection with appellant’s guilty plea, the State moved to reduce the offense to possession. During the punishment phase, appellant testified that he was with his friend Justino Campaz when they stopped at a gas station. Appellant said he went inside the station to play a video game and within five minutes the police arrived and arrested both Campaz and him. Appellant testified that he did not know that Campaz had drugs or that a drug deal would take place at the gas station. Appellant said he was aware that the arresting officer said he had the drugs in his hands for a brief period of time. Appellant denied ever seeing any heroin on the date of his arrest.
Campaz testified at the punishment phase that he did not tell appellant that he was going to the gas station to sell drugs and that appellant did not handle any of the money or take the heroin out of the bag. According to Campaz, appellant found out about the drug deal “[w]hen what happened happened.” He did not intend for appellant to be involved in the drug deal. On cross-examination, Campaz denied that appellant took a kilo of heroin from the car and gave it to him in the presence of an undercover police officer.
During his closing statement, appellant’s counsel indicated that he was surprised by appellant’s testimony, and he moved to withdraw the guilty plea. Appellant did not testify concerning why he previously pleaded guilty and appellant’s counsel offered no explanation. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
On appeal, appellant concedes the record reflects that the trial court properly admonished him before accepting his guilty plea. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2010). If the record reflects that a defendant was properly admonished, there is a prima facie showing that a guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. See Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); In re T.W.C., 258 S.W.3d 218, 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). A defendant may still raise the claim that his plea was not voluntary; however, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea such that he suffered harm. Martinez, 981 S.W.2d. at 197; In re T.W.C., 258 S.W.3d at 222.
Nothing in the record indicates that appellant did not understand the consequences of his guilty plea at the time that he pleaded guilty. Instead, appellant argues that because he claimed he was innocent at the punishment phase, it was “apparent that [he] truly desired to plead not guilty and present a defense during a trial.” Appellant cites no authority for this proposition. See Fisher v. State, 104 S.W.3d 923, 924 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (holding trial court did not err in refusing to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea merely because presentence investigation report raised an issue as to defendant’s innocence).
Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Evelyn V. Keyes
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] See Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(2), .115(a), (f) (Vernon 2010).