## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___ ________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00014

- CR

____________

________ _______

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 15405 87D
Before Bassel, Womack, and Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Walker 

### M ARHINOTA 

### K

EJUAN 

### F ORD 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMOR ANDUM OPINION
I. B ACKGROUND Appellant Mar hinota Kejuan Ford plea ded guilty to aggravated robbery and was placed on six year s of deferred

- adjudication community supervis ion

. The written plea admonishments informed him that, if he violated any con dition of his community supervision , he wo uld be entitled to an a djudication hearing, af ter which the trial court could adjudicate him guilty and assess his punishment “ anywhere within the range provided by law.” Further, the admonishments inf ormed Ford that his charged offense was a first

- degree felony whi ch carried a penal ty range of 5 to 99 years or life in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. Both Fo rd and his attorney signed th e plea admonishments and Ford acknowledged with his signat ure that he fully
understood the written a dmonishments and that h e was aw are of the consequences of his plea. 1
While Ford was on community supervision , the State filed a petition to proceed to adj udication alleging that he had violated its ter ms . At the revocation hearing on
the State ’ s petition , Ford pleaded true to the allegations

. The trial court , without
admonis h ing Ford re garding the relevant range of punishment or consequences of pleading t rue , adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confi nement. Ford filed a motion for new trial which was overruled by operation of law.

1 Ford concedes that he was properly admonished when he pleaded guilt y .3

Ford raises one point on appeal: that the trial court erred when it fail ed to admonish him at the rev ocation hearing as to the range of punish ment for the underlying offense an d the consequences of pleading true to the allegations in the
State ’ s p etition. Specific ally, he contends that this failure violated both his d ue
pro cess rights as announced by the Sup reme Court in Boykin v. Alabama and
A rticle 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See 395 U.S. 238, 242,
89 S. Ct. 170 9, 1711 (1969) ; Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Ann. art. 26.13 (a)

. We o verrule Fo rd ’ s point

. T he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ha s made it
abu nda ntly clear that A rticle 26.13 does not require trial courts to admonish probationers as to the consequ ences of a plea to a motion to revoke or adjudicate guilt. See Gutierrez v. State , 108 S.W. 3d 304, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ( holding i n revocation context that trial courts are not required to admonish defendants pursuant

to A rticle 26.13 ) ; Harris v. S tate , 505 S .W.2d 576, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ( “ We hold that admonishments provided for in Article 26.13

. . . do not apply in revocati on of p roba tion proceedings

. ” )

. Relatedly , discussin g Boykin , the Court of Criminal Appeals reco gnized th at due proce ss does not require a trial court to make A rticle
26.13 admonishments. Aguirre

- Mata v. State , 125 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ( “ Boykin cl early did not hold that due process requires the equivalent of the Article 26.13(a) admonishments or an adm onishment on th e range of punishment

. ” ). Thus, neither due process nor Article 26.13 required the trial court to admonish
Fo rd about th e range of p unishment or the consequences of pleading true at the4

revoca tion hearing. And Ford does not point us to a statute or precedent that places
upon a trial court such a duty

. For these reasons, w e overrule his sole point on appeal
and affirm the t rial court ’ s judgment.

/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker Justice
Do No t P ublish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : December 22, 2022