AIF1 I{NI; Opinion issued January 31, 2013

In The 

## nitrt nf ipra1 FiftIi Jitrirt uf cxwi at 1a11a No. 05-1 1-001 73-CR DAVID NEGUS COBOURN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-58452-1 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley. Francis, and Lang Opinion By Justice Francis David Negus Cobourn appeals his conviction for evading arrest or detention after having been convicted previously ofthe same offense. Appellant pleaded not guilty and requested ajury trial. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, at four years and six months in prison. In two issues. appellant claims the trial court erred by failing to admonish him on the range of possible punishments on pleas of true to enhancement allegations and the evidence is insufficient to connect him to the second prior conviction. We affirm. In his first issue, appellant claims the trial court failed to admonish him on the applicable range ofpunishment on his pleas ot’true to the two enhancement paragraphs. He argues his pleaswere theretbre involuntary and the error was not harmless because nothing in the record indicates he was aware ofthe punishment range. ihe lexas (ode ot Criminal Procedure requires a trial court to admonish a (ielendant in a hlony case on the applicable range of punishment hefire accepting a plea ol guilty or nob contendere: it does not, however. apply to a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph. See TEx. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13( )(1) (West Supp. 2012); Sylvester r Slate, 615 S.W.2d 734, 736—37 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.j 1981). An admonishmenton the punishment range foraplea oftrue is discretionary withthetrial courtand is notrequiredunderTexas law. Harveyv. State, 611 S.W.2d 108, 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh’g). Appellant pleaded not guilty to the primary offense in this case: therefore, he was not given the admonishments associated withentering aguilty plea. Afterthejury Found him guilty, appellant then pleaded true to the two enhancements. No error resulted from the trial court’s failure to admonish appellant with respect to the punishment range associated with his pleas oftrue. and his pleas were not involuntary. Furthermore, we note that, after appellant was arraigned, defense counsel informedthe trial courtappellant’srequestforaninemonthpleaoilerhadbeendenied. Thetrialcourtreplied, “Okay. And [the range is] 2 to 10?” Defense counsel responded that it was. And during voir dire, both defense counsel and the State referred to appellant’s punishmentrange being potentially two to ten years because ofthe twopriortilony conviction enhancements. Thus, appellantknewthe enhanced range ofpunishment before pleading true to the enhancementparagraphs. We overrule appellant’s first issue. Inhis second issue. appellantclaims the evidence is insufficientto connecthimtothe second prior conviction. Appellant argues the State was required to prove the second prior convictionbecause his picas of true were involuntary. It is the States burden to prose an iileged prior conviction was a final conviction and the defendant was the person previously convicted ofthat offense. 

### Wilson v. State. 671 SW2d 524, 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). lithe defendantpleads true to the enhancementparagraph, the State’s burden ofproofis satisfied. Id. Because appellant voluntarily pleaded true to the two enhancement paragraphs, the States burden was met. Appellants complaintto the contrary lacks merit. We overrule appellant’s second issue. We affirm the trial court s judgment.

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. Aip. P. 47 1101 73F.U05

—3—

## _niirt iii 

## ipra1 Fiftii 

## 1itrirt uf rxai at 1a11a JUDGMENT l)AVID NEGUS COI3OURN. Appellant No. 05-1 1-00173-CR V THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 ofDallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. Fit)— 58452-I). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Moseley and Lang participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, thejudgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 31. 2013

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE