AFFIRM; Opinion Filed June 5, 2013.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 0 1360
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01361
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01362
- CR MARQUISHA ANTIONETTE FRAZIER , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Crimi nal Distri ct Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 1 0
- 25636
- L, F11
- 17550
- L, F11
- 39844
- L 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang

- Miers Opinion b y Justice Moseley Marquisha Antionette Frazier waived a jury and plea ded guilty to one burglary of a habitation offense and two aggravated robbery offenses. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § § 29.03(a), 30.02(a) (West 2011 ) . The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years’ imprisonment in each case. In six issues , appellant contends her guilty pleas were involuntary and the trial court erred by failing to orally pronounce the sentence s and to afford her the right of allocution in each case . We affirm the trial court’s judgments. The background of the case s and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of- 2

- the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case s is well settled. In her first thr ee issues, appellant contends her guilty pleas w ere involuntary because she pleaded guilty believing the trial court would grant her community supervision. Appellant asserts that because she had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder and several witne sses on her behalf asked the trial court to give her another chance, she believed the trial court would grant community supervision and an opportunity to get counseling. The State responds that appellant failed to preserve her complaints for appellate rev iew and, alternatively, the record shows the trial court complied with the applicable requirements of article 26.13 of the code of criminal procedure. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art . 26.13 (West Supp. 20 1 2 )

. When considering the voluntariness of a gui lty plea, we must examine the entire record. See Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195 , 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam). If the trial court properly admonished a defendant before a guilty plea was entered , there is a prima facie showing the plea was b oth knowing and voluntary. See id

. The record shows the trial court properly admonished appellant both orally and in writing. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 26.13(a), (c); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1997, pet. ref’d). Appe llant said she had “gone over all the papers” that she had signed with her counsel

. These papers include appellant’s judicial confession s and stipulation s of evidence as well as the plea agreements that contain written admonishments as to the punishment r ange . During appellant’s testimony, she took responsibility for her actions and called several witnesses who advocated for community supervision on appellant’s behalf. The record does not support appellant’s complaint that she pleaded guilty only because she believed she would receive community supervision. Moreover, the fact that appellant received greater- 3

- punishment than she hoped for does not render her pleas involuntary. See Tovar

- Torres v. State , 860 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Te x. App.

— Dallas 1993, no pet.)

. We conclude appellant has not shown her guilty pleas were involuntary. We resolve appellant’s first, second, and third issue against her. In her fourth, fifth, and sixth issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to orally pronounce the sentence and to afford her the right of allocution under code of criminal procedure article 42.07. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.07 (West 2009 ). Appellant asserts that because the trial court did not ask if there was any reason why the sentence s should not be pronounced, and never actually pronounced the sentences, the trial court committed error. The State responds that appellant did not preserve this issue for appellate review and alternatively, none of the statutory reasons that would have p revented the trial court’s imposition of the sentence apply to appellant. After evidence and argument was presented , the trial court stated it would find appellant’s guilty pleas were “freely and voluntarily made” and “pursuant to that plea, the Court’s go ing to find you guilty and in each case assess a term of 15 years

. . . .” The trial court did not ask if any reason under law existed as to whether or not appellant should be sentenced at that time.
A ppellant fa iled to object, either at the end of the pro ceeding or in her motions for new trial, that she was denied her right to the pronouncement of sentence or her right to allocution. Therefore, she has failed to preserve error for our review. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1 ; Tenon v. State, 563 S.W.2d 622, 623

– 24 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op. 1978). Accordingly, w e resolve appellant’s fourth, fifth, and sixth issue against her.- 4

- We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Jim Moseley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 121360F.U05- 5

- 

## Court of Appe **als Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** 

JUDGMENT

MARQUISHA ANTIONETTE FRAZIER , Appellant No. 05

- 12

- 0 1360

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1 0

- 25636

- L ). Opinio n delivered by Justice Moseley , Justices Bridges and Lang

- Miers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.
Judgment entered June 5, 2013.

/Jim Moseley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE- 6

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

MARQUISHA ANTIONETTE FRAZIER , Appellant No. 05

- 12

- 0 1361

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1 1

- 17550

- L ). Opinion d elivered by Justice Moseley , Justices Bridges and Lang

- Miers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.
Judgment entered June 5 , 2013.

/Jim Moseley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE- 7

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fi fth District of Texas at Dallas** 

JUDGMENT

MARQUISHA ANTIONETTE FRAZIER , Appellant No. 05

- 12

- 0 1362

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1 1

- 39844

- L ). Opinion deli vered by Justice Moseley , Justices Bridges and Lang

- Miers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.
Judgment entered June 5 , 2013.

/Jim Moseley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE