Court Opinion

ID: 9778160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:34:16.807222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.186694
License: Public Domain

OPINION
DOUGLAS, Judge.
The convictions are on three counts of aggravated robbery upon pleas of guilty before the court. Punishment was assessed in three counts at fifteen years and one day. Earlier, the appeal was dismissed but it has been reinstated.
We agree with the brief filed by court-appointed counsel that the appeal is frivolous and affirm.
In view of the dissent which would reverse the conviction upon what it determines as unassigned error in the admonishment of appellant before he entered his pleas of guilty, this ground will be discussed. Before accepting the pleas of guilty, the court ascertained that appellant knew the range of punishment for the offense of aggravated robbery. Without setting out the questions by the court and the answers of appellant, we hold that the court ascertained that the pleas of guilty were voluntary.
The dissent would reverse these convictions because the admonishment does not recite that part of Article 26.13, Section (a)(2), V.A.C.C.P., which reads as follows:
“(a) Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of:
[[Image here]]
“(2) the fact that the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney as *940to punishment is not binding on the court. . . . ”
In the present case the prosecutor recommended the punishment actually assessed by the court. There is no showing that a plea bargain existed. If there had been a plea bargain, no error would be shown because Article 26.13, Section (c), as amended Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 909, ch. 341, then in effect, provided as follows:
“(c) In admonishing the defendant as herein provided, substantial compliance by the court is sufficient, unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court.”
A substantial compliance with the statute has been shown. There has been no showing appellant has been harmed or misled in any way.
No error has been shown. The judgments are affirmed.
ONION, P. J., concurs on the ground that there was no plea bargain.