11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Richard Henry Williams, Jr.
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-01-00338-CR -- Appeal from Dallas County
State of Texas
Appellee
Richard Henry Williams, Jr. entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of delivery of more than 4 but less than 200 grams of cocaine. He also entered pleas of true to both enhancement allegations. The trial court convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for 25 years. We affirm.
In his sole issue, appellant contends that his plea was not made voluntarily because he did not have a full understanding of the applicable law. Appellant asserts that, at the time of his plea, he believed he would be placed on deferred adjudication.
The clerk=s record in this case shows that appellant received and signed written admonitions from the trial court concerning his statutory and constitutional rights. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2002). The record also shows that appellant received verbal admonitions from the trial court at the plea hearing. The trial court properly instructed appellant regarding the range of punishment, including the fact that the minimum punishment available was 25 years confinement. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002). Appellant indicated that he understood his rights and the risks involved with an open plea of guilty. Appellant also stated that he understood the applicable range of punishment. Because the record indicates that appellant was properly admonished, a prima facie showing was made that his plea was knowing and voluntary. Thus, the burden switched to appellant to demonstrate that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea such that he suffered harm. Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Cr.App.1998); Ex parte Gibauitch, 688 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). Appellant failed to meet this burden. He has not shown that he did not understand the consequences of his plea. To the contrary, the record indicates that appellant understood the consequences of his plea and the risk that he was taking with the hope that the trial court would place him on deferred adjudication. Appellant=s sole issue is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
July 11, 2002
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.