NO. 07-08 -003 0-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER14, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JAMES GIS T , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 37 1 ST DIS T RI CT COU RT OF T AR RA NT COU NT Y; NO . 103 2660D ; H ON ORABLE MO LLEE W ESTFAL L, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Fol low ing an o pen ple a of g uil ty , app ell ant J ames G is t was conv icted o f posse ss ion of coca ine i n an amount o f four grams or more but l ess than 200 g ra ms and se ntenc ed to seve nte en years of

conf inem ent . Th rough one issue, ap pellan t cont end s the trial court er re d by fail ing to proper ly

admoni sh him dur ing the ple a proceed in g. W e w il l aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.See T ex. H eal t h & Safety C ode Ann. § 481 .11 5(d) (Vernon 200 3). Th is is a 1 secon d de gree felon y

pun ishab le by imp risonm entin t he institut iona l d iv ision for any term of not more tha n 20 y ears o r les s t han 2 yea rs. T e x. Pe n al Cod e Ann. § 12 .33 ( Ver non 2003) . 2 Backg ro und I n D e c e mb e r

2 0 0 6 , a p p e l l a n tw a s i ndi ct e d o n tw o c o u n t s o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance, co cai ne, i n an amount four g ra ms or

more butl ess than 200. The 1 firs t c ount all eg ed appe ll ant poss ess ed the drug w it h the intent to dis tr ibu te it; the sec ond coun tomitt ed th at allegatio n. T he reco rd ref lects tha t app ellantf irst rejecte d plea of fers f rom th e Sta te, th en d ecide d to ple a d guilty to th e seco nd co unt“open to the jury ,” in ex chang e for the S tate’ s a g re ement t o di smi ss the first countand w aiv e an enhanc ement parag ra ph. A s t h e re s u lto f a p p e ll a n t ’s p le a a n d t h e S t a t e ’s a ct io n s , a f t e r t h e o p e n p le a o f

gu il ty, a j ur y w as sel ect ed to hear

ev ide nce and asses s appel lan t’ s p uni shment . The Stat e c all ed tw o po lice of

f icers to testif

y . Th e f irst of

f icer testif ied th at on August 8, 200 6, of f icers w ere ex ecut ing a s earch w ar ra nt i n c onnecti on w it h dr u g a ct ivity. The officer and his par

tner entered th e resi dence to be searched and ob ser v ed a male, l ater

i denti fied as appel lan t, ru n n in g o u tt h e b a c kd o o r. T h e two o f f ic e rs ch a s e d h im a n d wa t c h e d a p p e ll a n tt h ro w a bag ov er the fence. The off ic ers a pprehended appel lan t and arrest ed him. Coc ain e was later foun d in the bag. Appe llant te stif ied on his own beh alf . Af ter hea ring the ev iden ce present ed, the jur

y asses sed puni shmentagai nst appell ant as no ted. Appel lan t t imel y fil ed noti ce of appeal .3

Appel lan t’ s o ri g ina l appel lat e c ounse l filed a br ief tha t c oncl u d e d t h e a ppeal w as w hol ly fri v olo us and w it hout meri t. See Ande rs v. Cal if or nia , 386 U. S. 738, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 ( 1967) and In r e Schul m an, 252 S.W .3d 4 03 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2008) . On re v iew ing the re cord, ho w ev er , we c o n clu d e d the re w as at l eastone arg uabl e i ss ue for app e a l, thatregarding the abse nce o f an ad mo nishm entto app ellantof the po ssible depor tati on c onseq uence s o f his g uil ty pl eas. See G is t v

. St ate, N o. 07 -0 8- 0030- CR , 200 9 W L 15779 68 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo June 5, 20 09, n o pet .) ( me m . o p ., n o t des ig nated for publ ic ati on) . New

appel lat e c ounse l w as appoi nted by the tr ial cour

t and c ounse l filed a br ief as ser

ti ng the tr ial cour

t er re d w hen it faile d to proper ly admoni sh appel lan t dur ing the ple a proceed ing . The record s hows that, after appel lan t’ s c hang e of mind and dec is ion to enter a pl ea of gu il ty , t he tr ial co urt orall y admoni shed him of the puni shmentrang e for the o ffense. See Tex . C ode Crim . Proc. Ann. ar t. 26.13( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 7) ( re q uir ing su ch an admoni ti on) . The re cord, ho w ev er , c ontai ned no admoni ti on of the immi g ra ti on cons eq uence s of appell ant’ s g uil ty pl ea. See Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 26.13( a) (4 ) (V er non 200 7) ( re q uir ing admoni ti on th at i f the defendant is nota U n ited St ates ci ti z en, ple a of g uil ty may re sul t in depor tati on, ex cl usi on from admis si on to thi s count ry or deni al o f n a t u ra l i z a t i o n u n d e r fe d e ra l l a w ) . See als o Vann or tr ick v . St ate, 227 S.W .3d 7 06 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( a d d re s s i n g c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a b s e n c e o f a d mo n i ti on) ; Burto n v. State, N o. 02 -0 6- 00279- CR , 200 7 W L 30378 40 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth Oct . 18, 2 007, pet. re f ’d ) (m e m . op ., no t d e sign a te d fo r pu b lic a ti o n ) (a p p lyin g Van nortrick). Ap pel lan t arg ues the t ri al cour

t re v ersi bly er re d by faili ng to proper ly admoni sh him. The S tate cont ends the4

record supp orts a f inding app ellantis a United State s citiz en, rende ring any error harm less. W e now ag re e w it h the Sta te. Ana lysis A tr ial co urt' s a dmonit ion s t o and inq uir ies of a defendant pr ior to his pl ea of g uil ty ser v e to protect s ev eral cons ti tuti onal r ig hts . Van nortrick, 227 S.W .3d at 708 . Articl e 26.13 is des ig ned t o prov ide thes e c onst it uti onal as surances but the a dmonit ion s cont ain ed th erein are notthems elv es cons ti tuti onal ly req uired. Id. Cons eq uentl y , t he failure to a dm onish a defend antregarding the imm igration conse quence s of his p le a is non -constitu tiona l error subje ct to a ha rm an alysi s u n d e r Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 44.2( b) . Id.;se eTex . R . Ap p. P . 44. 2( b) . Rev iew ing co urts loo k for “s ubst anti al compl ian ce” w it h the s tatut or y req uirement. Butthe Cou rto f

Crimin al App eals ha s state d, “[t]o claim tha t an ad mo nishm entw as in subst ant ial com pliance even tho ugh it was ne v er gi v en is a legal fictio n.” Van nortrick, 227 S.W .3d a t 708 . The record demons trates appel lan t w as not ad monis hed, eit her orall y or in w ri ti ng , on the d epor tati on c onseq uence s o f his pl ea. T here was not s ubst anti al compl ian ce w it h the ar ti cl e 26. 13( a) (4 ) admoni ti ons re q uirem e n t. See Tex . C od e C r i m. Proc. Ann . art. 26 .13 (a)(4) ( Verno n 20 09). Both par ti es ack now led g e the tr ial co urt er re d by fail ing to inc lud e the depor tati on c onseq uence s in the p lea admoni ti ons g iv en appe ll ant. Se e B ur nett v. State, 8 8 S . W . 3 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 7 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ( a d d re s s i n g e r ro r from abse nce o f

adm onitio n, an d resulting harm ).SeeU.S. Const. ame nd. X IV, § 1; 8 U.S. C. § 143 3(a) (each d eclaring person s born 2 in the United St ate s to be citizens). 5 Appel lan t, how ev er , was not h ar med by the tr ial cour t’ s er ro r. On our ini ti al re v iew of the record, we det er mined itw as si len t as to appel lan t’ s c it iz enshi p. Howev er , after new coun sel w as ap poin ted and a new b ri e f wa s subm itted , a secon d sup plem ent al clerk’s re cord was filed at the S tate’ s req uestco ntai nin g the Appearance Bond si g ned by appel lan t i n Aug ust 2006. That bond shows a ppel lan t was bor n i n M ar y ana, Ar kans as, and w e c an th e re fore i nfer he is a U nit ed St ates ci ti z en. See F akey e v . St ate , 227 S.W .3d 2 714, 716 ( Tex .C ri m.Ap p . 2 007) ( dis cus si ng i nferenc es re g ardin g ci ti z enshi p bas ed on ex aminat ion of appel lat e record) . Ap p e lla n t filed hi s b ri ef before th e record was suppl emented and hi s i ss ue i s b ased on th e or ig ina l si len t record. Ev en s o, ap pel lan t doe s not a ss ert he is not a U nit ed St ates ci ti z en, n or has he c hal le n ged t h e aut henti ci ty or credi bil ity

of the d ocument s c ontai ned i n the se cond suppl emental cl er k’ s record. W here the record af

firmat iv ely

shows t he defendant is a U nit ed St ates ci ti z en and is the re fo re n o t subje ct to de porta tion, the trial court's failure to a dm onish him in acc ordance w it h ar

ti cl e 26. 13( a) (4 ) is har mles s. See Vann ortrick, 2 2 7 S.W .3d a t 209 ; S t r i b l i n g v . S tate, N o s . 0 5 - 0 3 - 0 0 0 5 5 - C R , 0 5 - 0 3 - 0 0 0 5 6 - C R , 0 5 - 0 3 - 0 0 0 5 7 - C R , 2 0 0 5 WL 36191 9 0 ( Te x .App. –Da ll as Jan. 9, 2005, no pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) (fin din g er ro r in faili ng to admoni sh on depo rt ati o n c o n se q uence s h ar mles s w here, after an Anders br ief was re jected, a s uppl emental cler k’ s record was filed co ntai nin g document s s how ing the appel lan t was a Uni ted Stat es ci ti z en) ; Lopez v. Sta te , N o. 14 -9 6- 00390- CR , 199 8 W L 41876 8 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4th Dist .] Jul y 23, 1998, pet. re f'd)6

(mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lication) (record showed app ellantwas a citiz en where appel lan t' s p en pac ketand a doc ument enti tl ed "Defendant Des cr ipt or ," c ontai ned i n the suppl emental cl er k' s rec ord, reflect ed appe ll ant was bor n i n H oust on, Tex as and t hat h e w as a c it iz en of the U nit ed St ates ). See al so Gam blev. Sta te, N o. 10 -0 5- 00044- CR , 200 7 W L 2127337 ( Tex .App. –W aco Jul y 25, 2007, no pet .) ( mem. op., not desi g nated for publ ic ati on) ( sim ila r f ind ing ). Ac cordin g ly , we ov er ru le appel lan t' s i ss ue and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Do not p ubl is h.