Paul N. Privett v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 14, 1996
Docket10-93-00186-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Paul N. Privett v. State (Paul N. Privett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paul N. Privett v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Privett v. State


IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-93-185-CR

&

No. 10-93-186-CR


     PAUL N. PRIVETT,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.


     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                              Appellee


From the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 9317462 & 9317463


O P I N I O N


      Paul Privett pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of theft (Cause Number 93-185-CR) and resisting arrest (Cause Number 93-186-CR), and the court assessed concurrent punishments of ninety days in the Harris county jail. Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 31.03, 38.03 (Vernon 1994). He raises one point of error in each appeal, arguing that the court erred by failing to properly admonish him in compliance with article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: in Cause Number 93-185-CR, he alleges that the court wholly failed to admonish him; in Cause Number 93-186-CR, he claims that the court admonished him with an incorrect range of punishment. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 1996). However, article 26.13 does not apply to misdemeanor guilty pleas. Price v. State, 866 S.W.2d 606, 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Empy v. State, 571 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Thus, the court is not required to admonish the defendant before accepting his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge. Id. Because article 26.13 does not apply to misdemeanor guilty pleas, we overrule his sole point in each cause and affirm the judgments.

                                                                                PER CURIAM


Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

      (Chief Justice Thomas not participating)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 14, 1996

Do not publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Price v. State
866 S.W.2d 606 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Empy v. State
571 S.W.2d 526 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paul N. Privett v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-n-privett-v-state-texapp-1996.