## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 14 - 00247 - CR

MARCUS EDWARD CLICK APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 355TH DISTR ICT COURT OF HOOD CO UNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CR12 270

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINI ON 1

---------- In a single issue, appellant Marcus Edward Click appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years’ confinement. We will affirm. Click pleade d guilty to intoxication manslaughter, a second

- degree felony, and a jury assessed his punishment at ten years’ confinement and a $10,000
fine ; the trial court then suspended imposition of the sentence of confinement

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

based on the jury’s recommendation and placed Click on ten years’ community supervisio n. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.08 (West 2011 ); see also id. § 12.33 (West 2011 ) (stating that the punishment range for a second

- degree felony is two to twenty years’ confinement and may include a fine not to exceed $10,000). Around a year later, t he St ate filed a motion to revoke Click’s community supervision, alleging that Click had failed to abstain from using
alcohol

. Click pleaded true to the allegation , and t he trial court revoked his community supervision “based up on [his] plea and the evidence p resented” and imposed the original ten

- year sentence and $10,000 fine

. Click argues that the trial court erred by failing to admonish him about the range of punishment to which he was subject as a result of pleading true to the allegation in the State’s mo tion , analogizing this to a fail ure to admonish a defendant who pleads guilty about the range of punishment to which he will be subjected during a trial’s punishment phase

. However, Click acknowledges that
in Gutierrez v. State , the court of criminal appe als held that a trial court is only required to admonish a defendant of the punishment range before he or she plead s guilty to a felony offense and not before he or she plead s true in a revocation proceeding. 108 S.W.3d 304 , 309

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (“ [ I ] n the context of revocation proceedings, the legislature

. . . has not required the court to inquire as to the existence of a plea agreement or admonish the defendant pursuant to 26.13.”); see also Aguirre

- Mata v. State , 125 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. Crim . App. 2003) (stating that Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 893

S. Ct. 1709 (1969), “clearly did not hold that due process requires the equivalent of the Article 26.13(a) admonishments or an admonishment on the range of punishment” to a defendant pleading g uilty); cf. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(1) (West 2009 & Supp. 2014 ) (stating that before a trial court accepts a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere, it shall admonish the defendant of the range of punishment attached to the offense).
W e de cline Click’s invitation to contradict the court of criminal appeals ’s precedent ; therefore , we overrule his sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See, e.g. , Sierra v. State , 157 S.W.3d 52, 60 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2004) (op. on reh’g) (statin g that this court “is bound by the precedent of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and has no authority to disregard or overrule” it), aff’d , 218 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Southwick v. State , 701 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1985 , no pet.) (“The Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest tribunal on matters pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, and when it has deliberately and unequivocally interpreted the law in a criminal matter, we must adhere to its interpretation.”).

/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARD N ER , and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: February 26 , 2015