## NO. 12-09-00083-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEX AS

CHAS E JEF FER Y , § APPEAL F ROM THE 124TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § GR EG G C OU NTY, TE XAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Chase Jeffer

y appea ls his conviction for burglar y of a ha bitation, for which he was sente nced to imprisonment for forty

y ear s. I n one is sue, Appellant argues t hat he was not proper ly admonished
c on c e rn ingthe po ssi bil ity of his de po rt a tio n a s a

re su lt o f h is guil ty

ple a . We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant was char g ed by indictment with ag g ravated robbe ry and burg lary

of a ha bitation. Appellant plead ed “guilty ” to burg lary of a ha bitation and attempted robbe ry , and the matter proce eded to a

bench tr ial on punishment. Ultim ately , the trial co u rt as s essed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for forty y ear s. This appea l followed.

A D M ON I SHM ENT C ONCE RNI NG P O SSI BILITY O F D E P ORT AT I ON I n h is s ole iss ue , App e lla nt a rgue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt fa ile d to pro pe rl y

a dmo nis h h im
c on c e r n i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f h i s b e i n g d e p o rt e d a s a c o n s e qu e n c e o f h i s g u i l t y p l e a . Th e Sta te argues, among other thing s, that Appellant wa s not harmed a s a re sult of this allege d err or. A tri a l c ourt ’s a dmo nit ion s to a nd inq uir ie s of a de fe nd a nt pr ior to his ple a of g uil ty se rv e to2

protec t severa l constituti onal rig hts. See V anN ortri c k v . St ate , 2 27 S.W. 3d

70 6, 70 8 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2007). They assure the court that the defendant’s waiver of these rights in enter ing a g uilty plea comports with due proc ess, that is, the waive r wa s made voluntarily an d wi t h k nowledg e of the conseque nces of

the plea. Id. Te xas C od e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e du re , a rt ic le 26 .1 3 is de sig ne d to provide these constitutional assurance s. Id. ; s e e als o T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 26.13 (V e r n o n 2 0 0 9 )

. T h e a rt i c l e 2 6

. 1 3 a d m o n i t i o n s , h o w e v e r , a r e n o tt h e m s e l v e s c o n s t i tu t i o na lly require d. V

anNortrick , 227 S.W .3d at 708. Acc ording ly , t h e fa ilure to admonish a def endant reg arding the immigration consequenc es of his plea is nonconstituti onal er

ror. Id. For this particular e rror , the s tatute i tself provides g uidance : “In admonishing the defe ndant as her ein provided, substantial c ompliance by the cour

t is sufficien t , u nless the def endant aff irmatively

shows that he was not aw are of the c onsequenc es of his plea and that he w as misled or har med by the admonishment of the c ourt.” T EX
. C ODE
. C R IM
. P R OC
. A NN . art 26.13(c ) (Ve rnon 2009). We r eview for “substantial compliance ” with the statutory require ment. V

anNortrick , 227 S.W .3d at 708. “To claim that an admonishm ent was in substantial compliance e ven thoug h it was
never g iven is a leg al fiction.” Cai n v . St ate , 947 S.W .2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Ye t, e ve n a ssumin g a rgue nd o th a t th e tr ia l c ourt fa ile d to su

bs tanti a lly c omp ly

wi th a rt ic le 26 .1 3, su c h a

no nc on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n o f t he sta tut e is s ub je c t to a ha rm a na ly sis un de r Te xas R

ule
o f A p p e ll a te Pr o c e d

u r e 4 4

. 2 ( b). See V

anNortrick , 2 27 S.W. 3d

a t 70 8. “ An y

oth e r e rr or , d e fe c t, irregularity , or var iance that does not a ffe ct substantial r ights must be disreg arde d.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2(b). I f the e rror

aff ecte d substantial rig hts, then it is not harmless. V anNortrick , 227 S.W .3d at 708. I n order

to decide w hether

the trial cour

t’s err or af

fec ted s ubstantial rig hts, we must conduct an indepe ndent examination of the rec ord as a whole. See id. Th e re is n o b ur de n o n e ith e r p a rt y to prove harm or harmlessne ss resulting from the e rror . See Ande rso n v . St ate , 182 S.W .3d 914, 918- 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Moreove r, we c onduct this analy sis by looking f or “indications that a def endant wa s or was not a

war e of the conseque nces of his plea and w hether

he wa s misled or harme d by the t rial court’s failure to admonish him.” Burne tt v . St ate , 8 8 S. W. 3 d

6 3 3 , 6 3 8 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). Th e c ri tic a l qu e sti on is, “ [C]ons ide ri ng the re c or d a s a wh ole , d o w e have a

fa ir
a s s u r a n c e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s d e c is io n to p le a d g u il ty w o u ld n o t h a v e c h a n g e d h a d th e court3

admonished him? ” Anderson , 182 S.W .3d at 919. Whe n th e re c or d sho ws a de fe nd a nt to be a Un ite d Stat e s cit ize n, the tr ia l cou rt ’s fa ilure to admonish him on the imm igr ation conseque nces of his guilty plea is harmless error

. V anNortrick , 227 S.W .3d at 709. This is so be cause such a de fenda nt is not subj ect to depor

tation, and there fore the threat of deportation could not have influenc ed that def endant’ s decision to plead g uilty

. Id. I n the case at hand, the prese ntence investigation (“PSI ”) report c onsidered by the trial cour

t prior to sentenc ing A

ppellant includes a section entitled “DEF ENDAN T I NFO RMATI ON.” I

n that
se c tio n, Appe lla

nt i s id e nti fi e d a s an A fr ic a n A me ri c a n ma le , b or n in He nd e rs on , T e xas. F ur the rm or e , App e lla

nt’ s “ Citi zen sh ip” is e xpre ssl y de sig nate d a s “ U. S.” Thus , the re c or d r e fl e c ts that Appellant is a United States c itiz en. See, e .g., Ashb y v . St ate , N o . 0 3

- 0 8

- 0 0 4 1 4

- CR , 2 0 0 8 WL 4753711, at *1 (Te x . App.–Austin Oct. 31, 2008, no pet.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (appe llate cour

t relied on PSI repor

t, which the trial court considere d, in de termining the appe llant’s citizenship st atus for the purposes of harm analy sis). Consequently , the trial cour t’s err or, if any , was harmless. Appe llant’s sole issue is overrule d.

D I S P OS I T I ON Having overr

uled Appellant’ s sole issue, we af fi rm the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.



### J AME S T

. WOR T HE N Chief J ustice

Opinion delivere d September 2, 2009. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.
(DO N OT PUBL I SH)