NO. 07-05-0088-CR NO. 07-05-0089-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A FEBRUARY 10, 2006

______________________________ SHANNON DEWAYNE THOMPSON, APPELLA NT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTE R COUNTY; NO. 49,28 2-B & 49, 283-B; HO NORABLEJOHN BOA RD, JUDG E

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and H ANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Following open pleas of guilty, appellant Shann on Dewayne Thompson was convicted of indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault of a chi ld. Punishment was assessed at 20 years confinement. Presenting asole issue, appellant contends the1 The Legislature replaced the term probation with t he ph rase “comm unity

supervision” in 1993. See Act of May 29, 1993, 73rd Leg ., R.S., ch . 900, § 4.01, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3716. 2 t rial court

erred in failing to accurately admonish him on probation prior to accepting his pleas. We affirm. Appellant

was convicted of offenses for which probation is not available. 1 See Tex. Code Crim. Pro c. Ann. a rt. 42.12, § 3g(a)(1 )(C) & (E) (Vernon Pamph. Su pp. 2005 ). Pursuantto a plea of guilty, the trial court must admonish a defendant, among other things,
on the range of

punishm ent. See id. at art. 26.13(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2005). The range of punishm ent do es not include probation. Price v. State, 866 S .W.2d 606, 610 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993). If, however, a court voluntee rs an admo nishment on the a vailabi lity of probation, it impos es a duty upon its elf to accurately admonish the defe ndant. Ex Par te Williams, 704 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986). Error has been found when a t ria l court improperly admonishes a defendant regarding probation, and t he record demonstrates the defendant was seeking probation. Harrison v. State, 688 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 985). Appellant

argues the trial court erred in misstating his eligibility for probation thereby making him unaware of the consequences of his pl ea because he was seeking probation. The State contends, and we agree, that when taken in its entire context, the pleahearing demonstrates appellant was hoping for deferred adjudication probation, for which he was eligible.3

In part, appellant was admonished as follows:
The Court: Do you understand – well, there is no recommendation in these cases, so do you understand that pursuant to your plea, I have a number of things that I could do? I could put you on probat ion, I could defer adjudication, I could find you guilty and sentence you up to those ranges of punishmentthatwe talked about in this case – you unde rstand those are kind of the ranges of the things that could happen today? [Appell ant]: Yes , sir.
Take n out of co ntext, th e court’s admonis hment app ears to of fer regul ar pro bation

. However, a review of the entire plea proceeding a nd the record from the motion for new trial hearing demonstrate appellant tes tif ied in h ope of, a nd defen se couns el argue d for, deferred adjudication probatio n. The offenses a ppellan t was cha rged with did not preclude his eligib ility for

deferred adjudica tion comm unity supervis ion. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(a).
Prior to hearing punishment evidence, the trial court announced, “I do accept your plea[s] of guilty. I find the evidence is sufficient to sustain a findin g of guil t, but I will reserve my final j udgmen t until s uch tim e as I hav e heard the pu nishme nt evide nce . . . . ” (Emphasis added). During the punishment phase, appel lant testified as follows: Q. You’re here today because you want to ask the Judge to put you on deferred probation. A. Yes. * * * Q. That’s the plans [sic] you have in thenear futu re should the Judge grant your desire for deferred probation?4

A. Yes. Q. Now, we’ ve talked about the requirements that you are going to h ave – whether you are fo und guil ty and the n convic ted . . . . A. Yes. Following presentation of the punish m ent evidence, the trial court announced it found appella nt guilty

in both causes a nd senten ced appe llant to 20 years confinem ent.
Atthe hearing on the motion for new trial , defense counsel pleaded with the trial court to postpone its decision and give app ellant another chance. Counsel stated, “[i]f you put him o n deferre d adjudi cation, you would still have the ful l range of punish ment.”
A review of the proceed ings in the un derlying causes d emonstrate s the tria l court did not erroneously admonish appellant that he was eligible for regular probation. Also, we have found nothing in the recor d showing appellant misunderstood the consequences of his plea. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

Don H. Reavis Justice
Do not publish.