NO. 07-08 -020 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y21, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ T OMMY M. GARCIA, APPE LLA NT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 36 4 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 7- 416492; H ON ORABLE BRAD LEY S. UN DE RW OOD , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON A p p e ll a n t , T o m m y M. G a rc ia , a p p e a ls h is c o n vic t io n fo r th e o f fe n s e o f fo r ge ry, enhanc ed w it h tw o or

more pr ior

st ate j ail felony conv ic ti ons. Appel lan t ent ered a ple a of no c ontes t t o the al leg ati ons w it hout any pl ea barg ain

. At t he puni shmentphas e of app ellant ’s trial, appe llant en tered plea s o f t ru e to all en han cem ent s. Th e trial court sent enced appel lan t t o 10 y ears c onfinement in the I nstit u ti o n a l Di v is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of

C rim in a l Jus ti ce. Ap pel lan t app eal s a ll eg ing thatthe tr ial co urt fail ed to prop erly adm o nish him abo ut th e ap plicable range of pun ishm ent , the refore, resu lting i nT EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 32.21( d) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. 1 Id. 2 T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 12. 42(a )(1) ( Verno n Sup p. 20 08). 3 T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 12. 34 (Ve rnon 200 3). 4 2 his pl ea to be e ntere d i n v iol ati on of hi s d ue proces s r ig hts under the Uni ted S tates Con sti tuti on. Fur

ther , app e llantco ntends the failu re of the t ri al cour t’ s a dmonis hment v iolate d the statu tory schem e in T exas and resu lted in harm f ul error. W e disagree an d w ill aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. Fac tual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und Appel lan t has not co n tes ted t he s uff ic ien cy of the fact s t o s uppor

t hi s c onv ic ti on, therefore, w e w il l address onl y thos e facts rele v ant t o the opi nio n. After appel lan t w as ar re ste d for the o ff ense of forg er y , he w as ind ic ted for

forg er y of a check , w it h three pr ior state jail felo nies alleged as enh ance me nts to the prim aryof fense . T he primary of fense 1 is punish able as a state jail felo ny. As enha nced , the of fense w as pu nisha ble as a th ird 2 deg re e felony

. The appl ic abl e puni shmentrang e for a thi rd deg re e felony i s i mpri sonment 3 for any ter m of not more tha n 10 y ears or les s than tw o y ears a nd, i n addi ti on, a fine n ot to ex ceed $10,000 co uld be a ss ess ed. 4 On t he day

tr ial w as sc hedul ed to st art, appel lan t dec ide d to enter a p le a of no cont est to the charged of fense and a plea of true to the en h a n c e m e n tprovi sions. App e l l a n t ’ s d e c i s i o n w a s r e a c h e d w h i l e t h e j u r y p a n e l w a s w a i t i n g t o b e s eated. U pon bei ng adv is ed of appel lan t’ s d eci si on, t he tr ial co urt proceed ed to admonis h appel lan tFurt h e r re f e re nce to the T exas Code of Cri min al Proced ure w ill be b y referen ce 5 to “article ___ ” or “ art. __ _”. 3 re g ardin g the eff ect a ple a of no cont est coul d hav e on his re si dence sta tus , if he w ere not a U. S. ci ti z en. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 26 .13 (a)(4) ( Verno n 20 09). Further, 5 the trial court adm onish ed a ppe llant th at th e cou rt w ould not acce pt th e plea unless app ellantapp eare d to be men tally com pet entand that the plea w as f reely and v olun tarily ma de. See art. 26 .13 (b). Duri ng the sam e pe riod of q uest ioning , the trial court also inq uired abou t appel lan t’ s si g nature on cer tai n ple a papers. Appel lan t ac know led g ed th at he unde rst o o d t h e c onst it uti onal r ig hts thathe w as g iv ing up a nd i t w as his ex press ed desi re to w aiv e tho se ri g hts and enter the ple a of no c ontes t. The t ri al cour t t hen s tated , “A ll ri gh t

. Al l r ig h t

. I wil l a c c e p t yo u r pl e a o f n o co n t e s t

. I wi ll a p p ro ve t h e wa ive r o f ju ry. W e w il l proceed i n a n on- jur y tr ial w it h a p lea of

no cont est .” The tr ial co urt t hen di smi ss ed the w a i t i n g j u r

y . U p o n a r r i v i n g b a c ki n t h e c o u rt ro o m, t h e t r i a l j u d g e m a d e t h e fo ll ow ing sta tement, “ Oka y . Al l ri g ht. This i s a n open ple a. It’ s a pl ea of no c ontes t. The C our t has acc epted the d efendant’ s p lea of no c ontes t. The St ate’ s i ntenti s t o puton a ll of y our ev ide nce at t his ti me.” After the Stat e ans w ered th e tri al cour t, the j udg e ag ain st ated he had ac cept e d t h e plea and furth er found appel lan t g uil ty of the o ff ense of forg er y as all eg ed i n the first parag ra ph of the ind ic tment. Upo n inq uir ing w it h tr ial co unsel , w hether or not appel lan t inten ded t o pl ead t ru e to the e nhanc ement pa ra g ra phs, the tr ial j udg e w as infor med that appell ant did int end to plead tru e to the e nhanc ement pa ra g ra phs. The t ri al cour t th e n s ta te d the foll ow ing , “ If all of thes e enhan cemental leg ati ons are found to be tr ue, t hen t he rang e of puni shmenti s tw o to ten y ears in the penit enti ar y and an opt ion al fine of up t o $10, 000. D o y ou unde rs tand that to be the ra ng e of puni shment .” Ap pel lan tThe re cord c lea rl y reflect s t he tr ial co urt w as re ferr ing to the a dmonis hments 6 re g ardin g the appl ic abl e rang e of puni shmentw hen he re ferred to “ that. ” 4 a n s w e r e d t h a th e u nder sto o d t h a tt o b e t h e ra n g e o f p u n i s h me n ta p p l i c a b l e t o h i ms e l f. Fur ther , app ell ant a nsw er ed i n the aff ir mati ve when as ked if he a nd th e tr ial co urt had talked abo ut th e range of pun ishm entearlier in the proce edin g. Finally , the trial court made the foll ow ing i nq uir y , “ Oka y . Und ersta ndi ng all of that, is it st il l y our desire to enter y our pl ea of t ru e to thes e enhanc ement all eg ati ons alo ng w it h y our pl ea of no c ontes t t o the i nit ial ch arg e of forg er y ?” Ap pel lan t ans w ered y es si r to t he q uest ion as ked. 6 W it h thi s record before us , appel lan t ass erts that he w as not p ro per ly admoni shed and t here wa s n o s ubst anti al compl ian ce w it h the appl ic abl e s tatut or y req uirements for admoni shment

. See ar t. 26.13( c)

. Appel lan t c ontends thi s t o be so b e ca u se, the tr ial cour t’ s a dmonis hment as to the rang e of puni shmentca me after the p lea of g uil ty to the off ense of forg er

y had been ac cept ed by the cour t. Admoni shment s Appel lan t c ontends thatthe ple a o f n o co ntes t w as inv ali d on both federal cons ti tuti onal and sta te s tatut or y g ro unds. W e w il l re v iew eac h c lai m in tur n. Due Proce ss Claim A p p e ll a n tco n t e n d s t h a tt h e p le a e n t e re d wa s n o te n t e re d kn o win gl y o r vo lu n t a ri ly. How ev er , app ell ant’ s b ri ef on thi s is sue cons is ts of t he abov e s tatementand a c it ati on to tw o U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t c ases ab o u t the req uirement t hat a pl ea be entered5

v olun tarily . From the se general sta tem ent s, app ellant ma kes the conclu sion th at, b ecau se the rang e of puni shment w as not ex pla ine d “ about the o ff ense to w hic h appel lan t ent ered a no cont estpl ea,” the ple a w as inv olu ntar y . How ev er , app ell ant i s w ro ng . T he ran ge of

pun ishm entfor the “of fense to w hich ap pellan t e n t e re d a no con test plea ” is notthe ran ge o f p unish me nt app licable to ap pellan t. App ellantplead ed n o con test to forgery , a state ja il felon y , w hich carried a po ssible pu nishm entof 180 days to tw o y ears in a s tate jai l facil ity . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1 2.35( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. An adm onish me nt on this range of pun ishm ent w ould not have advised ap pellan t of the direct cons eq uence s o f enter ing hi s p lea of no c ontes t and pl ea o f true to t he enha ncement prov is ion s. See Bous ley v . U nit ed Stat es, 523 U. S. 614, 619, 118 S. Ct . 160 4, 14 0 L.E d.2d 828 ( 1998)

. Beca use th e indi ctmentag ain st appel lan t had three pr ior st ate j ail feloni es all eg ed for

enhancement pur poses , the appli cabl e punis hment rang e w as, as ex pla ine d by the t ri al cour

t, not more tha n 10 y ears n or less than tw o y ears in the ins ti tuti onal div is on, w it h an opt ion al fine notto ex ceed $10,000

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 12. 34 (Ve rnon 200 3). Acc ordin g ly , w e find that the admoni shment g iv en by the tr ial cour t, w hil e not the mode l by w hic h to train j udg es, di d in fact adv is e appel lan t of t he directco nseq uence s o f his pl ea of n o co n t e s ta n d t ru e a n d , t h e re fo re , d id n o tvi o la t e a p p e ll a n t ’s d u e p ro c e s s ri gh t s . B o u s le y, 523 U .S. at 61 9. Therefore, ap pel lan t’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. Non -c onst it uti onal Sta tutor y Vi ola ti ons Appel lan t al so cont ends that the a cti on of the tr ial co urt did n ot c onform to the re q uirements of arti cl e 26.13. Ag ain , t he pur pose of this st atuto ry sc heme i s t o ens ure tha t6

the a p p e l l a n t ’ s p l e a o f n o c o n t e s ti s e n t e r e d i n t o w i t h fu l l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e c o n s e q u ences of the plea

. S ee Sta te v . Jimen ez, 987 S.W .2d 886 , 888 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 9). In the case before the cour

t, the cons eq uence in q uest ion w as the appl ic abl e puni shmentrange. App ellantd esires to couch t he inquiry a s t o the ch arge a ppe llant forma lly u ttere d the phrase no c ontes t t o w hic h, as poi nted out a bov e, di d noti ncl ude t he appl ic abl e rang e of puni shment

. The onl y

di re ct cons eq uence of ap pel lan t’ s ple a of no c ontes t and tr ue to the enhanc ement al leg ati ons w as the l eng th of any i ncarcera tion and fine. Id. at n. 6, c it ing United State s v . Kikuyama , 109 F.3d 53 6, 53 7 (9 Cir . 199 7). Ar e view of the reco rd th dem onst rates th at, b efore ap pellan t had comp leted his plea of no con test , t he d irect cons eq uence s o f the pl ea w er e k now n to him. Th e f a ct that the a ppl ic abl e rang e of puni shmentw as not ful ly ex pla ine d unt il the is sue of the enha ncement s p a ra gra phs w as consid ered doe s not im pactthe fact th at prior to f inis h ing the plea , app ellantw as in f ull poss ess ion of all the infor mati on reg ardin g the directco nseq uence s o f the pl ea. W it h the knowledge of

those facts, appe llant continu ed to insist on ente ring the plea. The refore, th is plea w as in subst ant ia l c o m p lia nce wi th th e stat uto ry schem e. See art. 26. 13(c). Acc ordin g ly , app ell ant’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. Fur ther more, w e not e tha t ev en if w e found that the tri al cour t’ s e fforts at ad monis hin g app ellantw ere no t in substa nt ia l c om pliance w ith the statu tory schem e, th e record be fore us does not suppo rt the conc lus ion that suc h defecti v e admoni shmentaffect ed a subs tanti al ri g ht of appel lan t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( b)

. W hen w e cons ide r the re cord as a w hol e, w e h a v e b e t t e r t h a n a fa i r a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o e n t e r a pl ea of no cont estw oul d nothav e chang ed had the tr ial courtadmonishe d appell ant ex act ly as req uiredW hil e arg uin g the is sue of harm, appel lan t ent re ats the cour t t o rev is itthe cur re nt 7 har m anal y si s a nd appl y the cons ti tuti onal har m anal y si s u nder Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Proced ure 44 .2(a). Even w ere w e to find error, w e f ind no reaso n to alter the current ha rm anal y si s. 7 under t he s ta tu te

. S ee A nd ers on v . St at e, 1 82 S .W .3 d 91 4, 9 19 ( Tex .C r i m. Ap p. 2 006 ). Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude t hat e rror , i f any , w as har mles s. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 44 .2(b). 7 Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.