Opinion filed May 21, 20 09



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 01 84 -CR

____ ____ __ THOM AS JOSEP H GOTE LAE RE, Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee
On App eal from the 104th Distric t Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16541B

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N The trial c ourt convicte d Thomas J oseph Gotelaere , upon his plea of guilty , of fe lony driving wh ile int oxic a te d. A p le a ba rg a in a g re e me nt w a s n ot e nte re d. Ap pe lla nt ente re d a

ple a of tr ue to the e nh anc e me nt a lle g a tio n. Th e tr ia l court a sse sse d his pun ish me nt at c on fi ne me nt f or e ig ht y e a rs . We a ff ir m. Pr oc e e din gs in t he Tria l Co ur t The indictment alleg ed that appellant committed the prese nt of fense of DWIon J anuar

y 2, 2007. The indictment fur ther a lleg ed that appe llant had bee n convicted of DWI in 1997 and 1991.2

These w ere jurisdictional alleg ations to enhanc e the prese nt of fense to a third deg ree felony under T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 4 9

. 0 9 ( b ) ( V e r n o n Su p p . 2 0 0 8 )

. T o e n h an c e th e p u n is h me n t f or the p r e s e n t o f f e n s e to th e r an g e o f p u n is h me n t f o r a s e c o n d

d e g r e e f e lo n y , a 2 0 0 1 c o n v ic ti o nf

o r D WI
was a lso alleg ed. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.34 (Ve rnon 2003). On April 9, 2008, the t rial court conducte d a hearing on appellant’ s open plea of g uilty . The trial court a dmonished appellant both in ope n court and in writing . Appellant ente red a stipulation of e vid e nc e that he ha d c omm itt e d th e of fe ns e a s w e ll a s th e tw o ju ri sd ic tio na l pr ior

DWI s. He a lso te sti fi e d tha t he wa s ple a din g g uil ty be c a us e he wa s g uil ty

and that he wa s e nte ri nghis ple a fr e e ly
and vo lun tari ly . App e lla

nt wa ive d his ri g ht to a

pp e a l a s to his c on vic tio n b ut r e ta ine d h is r ig ht t o a pp e a l a s to punis hme nt. At the plea he aring , the punishment enhanc ement alleg ation was not discuss ed

. T h e trial court a dmonished appellant that the r ang e of punishment was confine ment for a term of not less than two y ear s and not more than ten y ear s and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. At the conc lusion of the plea

hear ing, the trial court or dere d the pre paration of a prese ntence investigation report and
sc he du le d a

he ari nga s to punis hme nt. On May 30, 2008, the trial cour

t con d u ct ed a he aringas to punishment. The trial cour t opened the hear ing by addre ssing the enhanc ement alleg ation as to punishment. The tr i al court
e xpla ine d that the punis hme nt e nh anc e me nt a lle g a tio n h a d th e e ff e c t of tr e a tin g the pr e se nt o ff

e ns e as a s ec o n d

d egr ee fe l o n y

ra t h er t h an a t h i rdd egr ee fe l o n y . T h e t ri al co u rt ex p l ai n ed t h at t h e r an ge of punishment was c onfinement for a ter m of not less than two y ear s and not mor e than twenty y ear s and an optional f

ine not to exceed $ 1 0 , 0 0 0

. Bo t h appellant a nd his counsel stated that they had discussed this rang e of punishment, and a ppellant enter ed a plea of true to the punishment enhanc ement alleg ation. The trial c ourt then spec ifically direc ted the par

ties’ attention to the misstatement in the prese ntence investigation repor t conce rning the puni shment rang e of a term of conf inement betwe en two and ten y ear s. The trial c ourt stated the c orre ct pu n i s h m en t rang e of a term of c onfinement betwee n two and twenty

y ear s and aske d th e p ar t i es if they had any objection. Appellant a

nd the State bo th a ff

ir ma tiv e ly state d th a t th e y

did no t ha ve any ob je c tio ns .3

Ap pe lla nt t e sti fi e d c on c e rn ingwh a t he de sc ri be d a s h is “ ve ry le ng thy his tor y wi th
a lc oh oli sm. ” Ap pe lla

nt r e qu e ste d a

pr ob a te d s e nte nc e and

pla c e me nt i n th e SAF PF pr og ra m. At the conc lusion of the May hear ing, the trial court convicted appellant of DW I , found the punishment enhanc ement alleg ation to be true, a nd imposed a s en tence of conf inement for e ight y e ars . Issue on Appe al I n his sole issue , ap p el l ant contends that rever sible err or occ urre d during the April plea hear ing w hen the tria l court admonished him conc erningthe punishment rang e for a third degr ee felony instead o f admoni shing him conc erningthe ra ng e for a sec ond deg ree felony . Appellant f u rt h e r c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d i na c c e p t i n g h i s p l e a

o f g u i l t y. The State re sponds by arguing that the trial court c orre cted the a dmonishments concer ning the prope r ra

ng e of punishment and, there fore , substantially complied with T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 26.13 (V ernon 2 0 0 9 ). Fur ther, the State c ontends that appe llant has failed to show a ny harm or to show that he was misled by the prior incor

rec t admonishment. The State points out that the punishment assessed w as within both the rang e of punishment for a t h i rd degr ee f elony and a second de g ree felony

. An aly sis The State re lies upon the ca se of Ro bin so n v . S tat e , 739 S.W .2d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), to suppor t its position that the trial court substantially complied with Article 26.13. While the cour t in Robinson was addressing a collateral challeng e to the t rial cour t’s admonishment in the conviction used for enhanc ement purpose s, we find that the r eas o n i n g of the Robinson court supports the p r o p o s i t i o nt h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i d s u b s t an t i a l l y c o mp l y w i t h t h e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f A rt i c l e 2 6

. 1 3

. In Ma rti ne z v . S tat e , 981 S.W. 2d

19 5, 19 6- 97 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ), the c ourt us e d th e re a so nin g in Robinson to hold that, in a dir ect appea l w here the actua l punishment assessed wa s within both t he proper rang e of punishment a nd the improperly stated rang e of punishment, the trial court’s admonishments substantially complied with the re quirements of A rticle. 26.13. Moreove r, appe llant has not shown how he wa s h ar m ed or misl ed by the orig inal admonishment at the plea hear ing. The rec ord does not suppor t his argument that reve rsible er ror occur red. A t the May

punishment hearing , the t rial court corre cted the a dmonishment, the parties4

aff irmatively stated t hat t hey had no objec tions, and appellant proc eede d with his pleas of g uilty and true. The issue is overrule d. Holding The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

T E R RY M c C A LL

JUSTI CE
May 21, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.