Opinion filed January 6, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00064-CR

__________

EDWARD LLOYE WELLS, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR20067

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We affirm.

Procedural Background

In April 2009, the trial court adjudicated seventeen-year-old Edward Lloye Wells, upon 

his plea of guilty, of engaging in the delinquent conduct of the aggravated sexual assault of his 

two-year-old cousin. The trial court entered an order for determinate sentencing pursuant to 

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 53.045 (Vernon 2008). The trial court assessed his punishment at 

confinement for ten years; however, the imposition of the sentence was suspended and appellant 

was placed on community supervision for ten years. In June 2009 when he turned eighteen, 
2

appellant was transferred to the adult system where the trial court entered a judgment convicting

him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed punishment at 

confinement for ten years. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the 

imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. At the

December 17, 2009 hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to 

nine of the State’s allegations. The State waived its remaining four allegations. The trial court 

found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, 

revoked his community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for ten 

years.

Issue on Appeal

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that his pleas of true were not knowingly and 

voluntarily entered. Appellant contends that, when he was transferred to the adult system under 

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.051 (Vernon 2008), he was told that his sentence could be assessed 

at five years (instead of the original ten years in his plea bargain agreement) if his community 

supervision was revoked. Therefore, appellant argues that his pleas of true were not knowingly 

and voluntarily entered.

Analysis

The judgment of conviction properly states the applicable range of punishment as a term 

of five to ninety-nine years or life and an optional fine of up to $10,000.1 When he entered his 

pleas of true at the revocation hearing, the trial court admonished him concerning the effect and 

the consequences of his pleas of true and the total range of punishment. The trial court inquired 

as to the reasons behind appellant’s pleas of true and whether he had been promised anything or 

threatened in any way. The trial court also specifically informed appellant that the maximum 

sentence he could receive was ten years and that “everything above 10 years, [he was] not 

facing.” Appellant indicated that he understood and that he was entering his pleas freely and 

voluntarily. The trial court then accepted appellant’s pleas and proceeded to hear the testimony. 

The record affirmatively reflects that the trial court properly admonished appellant and 

that his pleas of true were knowingly and voluntarily entered. The fact that appellant received 

the maximum years of confinement available under his original plea bargain agreement does not 

establish that his pleas were not voluntarily and knowingly entered. Appellant has not 

 

1TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32 (Vernon Supp. 2010).
3

established that the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The issue is 

overruled.

Holding

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

January 6, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.