Case Name: Ex parte Herman P. BEIERSDORF
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1976-02-18
Citations: 532 S.W.2d 632
Docket Number: No. 50335
Parties: Ex parte Herman P. BEIERSDORF.
Judges: ROBERTS, J., concurs in the result.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 532
Pages: 632–634

Head Matter:
Ex parte Herman P. BEIERSDORF.
No. 50335.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 18, 1976.
Herman P. Beiersdorf, pro se.
Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
DALLY, Commissioner.
This is a post conviction habeas corpus proceeding. See Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., and Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).
Petitioner, after the state withdrew its notices that it intended to seek the death penalty, waived a jury trial, entered pleas of guilty and was convicted on January 10, 1972, for two separate offenses of murder; the court assessed punishment at life imprisonment in each case.
Petitioner contends that the trial court improperly admonished him and failed to inquire into his sanity prior to accepting his pleas of guilty. The trial court admonished the petitioner that ". . . upon your plea of guilty the court would have to find you guilty and assess your penalty at some term in the State Department of Corrections not to exceed life . . . " The applicable range of punishment was imprisonment for life or for any term of years not less than two. Article 1257, V.A.P.C. The punishment of death was not applicable since the state had withdrawn its notices of intent to seek the death penalty.
In Tellez v. State, 522 S.W.2d 500 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), the court held that if a trial court in admonishing an accused prior to accepting a guilty plea misstates the range of possible punishment, but the accused is not misled to his prejudice by such erroneous admonishment, the error is harmless. Petitioner's punishment was set within the range erroneously stated by the trial judge; he was not misled to his prejudice. See Cameron v. State, 508 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Jorden v. State, 500 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); cf. Donahue v. State, 456 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).
Petitioner further contends that contrary to the requirements of Article 26.13, Y.A.C.C.P., the trial court failed to determine if the plea of guilty was freely given, unprompted by fear or persuasion. In Ex parte Taylor, 522 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), it was held that "in a collateral attack upon a plea of guilty there must be a showing that a defendant was prejudiced or injured for the failure of the trial court to fully comply with Article 26.13, supra." See also Guster v. State, 522 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The petitioner has made no showing of harm; the error is therefore harmless.
Petitioner lastly contends that the court erred in failing to inquire into his sanity prior to taking the pleas of guilty. The record shows that the trial judge stated, "All right you appear to be sane. I'll accept your plea;" he also stated, "You appear to be sane. Have a seat." No issue was made at the time the pleas of guilty were entered regarding the appellant's sanity; therefore, his contention is without merit. See Kane v. State, 481 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ring v. State, 450 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Perez v. State, 478 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
The relief sought is denied.
Opinion approved by the Court.
ROBERTS, J., concurs in the result.