Case Name: Stephen Eddison JOYNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1996-05-08
Citations: 921 S.W.2d 234
Docket Number: No. 1074-94
Parties: Stephen Eddison JOYNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: MANSFIELD, J., joins this opinion.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 921
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Stephen Eddison JOYNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 1074-94.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
May 8, 1996.
Phillip W. Swisher, Conroe, for appellant.
Dan MeCrory, Assist. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert A. Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a building without an agreed recommendation as to punishment. The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Appellant on probation for six years. Subsequently the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Appellant to seven years confinement. Appellant appealed alleging his original guilty plea was given involuntarily because he was not admonished as to the consequences of violating deferred adjudication probation pursuant to Article 42.12, § 5(a) & 5(b), V.A.C.C.P. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Joyner v. State, 882 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1994). We granted Appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the failure of the trial judge to admonish Appellant of the consequences of a violation of deferred adjudication probation did not retroactively render Appellant's guilty plea involuntary.
Recently this Court held that "Sec. 5(a) does not require, either in felonies or misdemeanors, that the defendant entering an open plea of guilty or nolo contendere be informed prior to his plea of the possible consequences under Sec. 5(b) of a probation violation." Ray v. State, 919 S.W.2d 125 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). Therefore, based on this Court's recent ruling in Ray, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
. Article 42.12, Sec. 5(a) provides that a judge shall inform the defendant orally or in writing of the possible consequences under Subsection (b) of this section óf a violation of community supervision. The consequences under Subsection (b) include the possibility that the defendant may be arrested, that he is entitled to a hearing on the determination whether to proceed with adjudication of guilt, that no appeal may be taken from this determination, and that upon adjudication of guilt, proceedings in the original case proceed as if there had been no deferment.