Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinion s filed Septem ber 29 , 2020.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO

. 14

- 19

- 00097

- CR NO. 14

- 19

- 00098

- CR NO. 14

- 19

- 00099

- CR NO. 14

- 19

- 00100

- CR

PATRICK DEON SMITH , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Ap pe al f

rom the 21st D i strict Court Washington County, Texas Trial Court C ause No s . 17557 , 17 675 , 17 814 , and 17 908

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

A ppella n t Patrick Deon Sm ith moved the trial court to allow him to
withdraw h is “ guilty ” plea, asserti ng t hat he was n o t informed that the range of punishment would be 25 years to life and that he did not understand that to be the applicable range of punishment

. The trial court denied the mot ion. On appeal, appellant a rgue s that the trial court ab us ed i t s di scretion in denying the motion2

because the trial court did not g iv e proper consideration to a ppellant ’ s impaire d
mental condition in light of Dr. Cantu ’ s competency evaluation report allegedly stating th at appellant was confused about how to p l ead to t h e c h arges aga inst hi m. Appellant a rgues in this court that the t rial court failed to con sider that his mental
illness and intellect ual disabilities c ompro mised his ability to understand the appl icable range of punis hment.

T he Texas Rules of Appellat e Pro cedu re require tha t t o preserve error for appellate review, the record must show that the party raised the complaint in the trial court by a timely re quest, obje ction , or moti on in which the party stated the grounds fo r the ruling the party sought from the tri al court wit h su ffi cient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context. Tex. R. App. P. 3 3

. 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ; Clark v.
State , 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 ( Tex . Crim. App. 2012). Under this pre serv ation

- of

err or rule, e ach complaint appellant raise s on ap peal must comp ort with a complaint he raised in the trial court

. See Clark , 365 S.W.3d at 339.

In the trial co urt appellant asserted that he was not i nformed of the range of punishment and that he di d not understand that the applica ble range o f punishme nt

w as 25 years to confinement fo r life

. Appellant d id not argue in the trial court that
his mental illness and intellect ual disabilities c ompro mised his abili ty to understand the appl icable rang e of p unis hment. Appellant did submit Dr. Cantu ’ s competency ev alu ation report in support of his motion to withdraw his “ guilty ” plea , nor did appellant refer to the report. To the e xtent appellant now relies on Dr.
Cantu ’ s report or a rgues that appellan t ’ s mental illness and intellect ual dis abilities prevented him from underst a nd ing the r an ge of pun ishment , a ppellant did not
preserve err or in the trial court

. See id

. A ppella nt preserved error on his complaint
that he was no t informed of the applicable rang e of punis hment, but this c omplaint3

lacks merit becau se the rec ord shows that appell ant was informed of the applicable range of pu nishment.

/s/ Kem Thompson Frost Ch ief Justice

Pa nel consists of Chief Justi ce Frost and Justices Chr i stopher an d B ourliot ( Bourliot , J., majority )

.
Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).