Court Opinion

ID: 9765111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:51:08.837793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:05.322743
License: Public Domain

OPINION
DOUGLAS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder with malice. Trial was before the court on a plea of guilty and punishment was assessed at ten years.
Appellant’s sole contention is that he was not properly admonished by the trial court as to the consequences of his plea as required by Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C. P.
The court admonished the appellant that the punishment for such offense is “ . . . confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for not less than two years nor more than life . . . ”; whereas the statutory range under Article 1257, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., is actually “ . . . life or for any term of years not less than two.” It is the omission of the words “for any term of years” which appellant contends is violative of Article 26.-13, supra.
The admonishment, even though it does not follow the exact wording of the statute, was sufficient to inform appellant that the consequences of his plea could include a sentence of any term in excess of two years. The omission in the admonishment could not have misled him to his detriment.1 Valdez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S.W.2d 927.
No reversible error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

. The dissent expresses concern that when this opinion was originally drafted no reasoning was advanced to show that the omission of “any term of years” from the admonishment could not have misled appellant to his detriment, apparenly because one accused of murder might receive five hundred or even a thousand years. If the dissenters will explain how an accused can be assessed a penalty greater than life in prison, further reasoning might be in order.