COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00324-CR

NO. 02-17-00325-CR

NO. 02-17-00326-CR

NO. 02-17-00327-CR

TIMOTHY WAYNE PACE, JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NOS. 1480422D, 1480424D, 1480425D, 1480428D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Timothy Wayne Pace, Jr. entered an open plea of guilty to three 

indictments alleging possession with intent to deliver drugs (heroin, cocaine, and 

methamphetamine) and to one indictment alleging unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a felon. A single plea hearing was held on the four cases during which

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

the trial court referenced the written plea admonishments and the judicial 

confessions filed in each case and asked Pace whether he had signed them, 

whether he had signed them freely and voluntarily after having adequate time to 

discuss them with his attorney, whether he was satisfied with his representation 

in each of the cases, and whether he understood that he was waiving or giving 

up all the rights contained in the documents. Pace responded, “Yes, ma’am,” to 

each of the trial court’s questions. Pace then entered guilty pleas to each of the 

four charges against him. After a presentence investigation report was prepared, 

the trial court held a sentencing hearing on the four cases and, after hearing 

testimony, sentenced Pace to twelve years’ confinement for each of the 

possession-with-intent-to-deliver offenses and to ten years’ confinement for the 

offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and ordered the sentences 

to run concurrently. 

On appeal, Pace argues in a single issue that he was not properly 

admonished in accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 26.13. 

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2017). Relying on the 

written admonishments that appear in the initial electronic clerk’s record that was

filed in each of the four cause numbers, Pace argues that he was not made 

aware of the consequences of his guilty pleas because each of the written 

admonishments appears “to contain a redaction wherein the words ‘the 

consequences’ has been omitted” such that the remaining text now says, “I am 

aware of my plea.” 
3

After Pace filed his brief, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s 

record in each of Pace’s cases reflecting that the original documents did not have 

the words “the consequences” obscured; thus, each of the written 

admonishments Pace signed states, “I am aware of the consequences of my

plea.” Because the apparent redactions challenged by Pace on appeal are 

nonexistent in the original documents as reflected in the supplemental clerk’s 

records, we hold that Pace was properly admonished in accordance with article 

26.13. See id. art. 26.13 (providing that court may make the required 

admonitions in writing if it receives a statement signed by the defendant and the 

defendant’s attorney that he understands the admonitions and is aware of the 

consequences of his plea); see also Estrada v. State, 981 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. ref’d) (holding written admonishments were valid).

Accordingly, we overrule Pace’s sole issue. Because Pace challenges no 

other aspect of his convictions, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/s/ Sue Walker

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; WALKER and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 8, 2018