Stacy Dewayne Manley v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2006
• Docket: 12-05-00394-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                NOS. 12-05-00392-CR

          12-05-00393-CR

          12-05-00394-CR

          12-05-00395-CR

          12-05-00396-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

STACEY DEWAYNE MANLEY,    §                      APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Stacey Dewayne Manley appeals his four convictions for aggravated robbery, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life in each cause.  Appellant also appeals his conviction for theft by check, for which he was sentenced to confinement for two years.  Appellant raises one issue on appeal.  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant was charged by separate indictments with four counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft by check.  In each indictment for aggravated robbery, the State alleged a prior felony conviction.  The trial court admonished Appellant, and Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged in each cause.  Thereafter, Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraphs related to the aggravated robbery charges.  Following a trial on punishment, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for life on each of his aggravated robbery convictions.  The trial court further sentenced Appellant to confinement for two years for theft by check.  This appeal followed.

Voluntariness of a Guilty Plea

            In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court failed to properly admonish him pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 26.13, thereby rendering his guilty pleas involuntary.¹  Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court admonished him that the punishment range for aggravated robbery was imprisonment for five to ninety-nine years, or life, but that after he pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraphs, the punishment range was, in fact, imprisonment for fifteen years to life in each cause. 

            A guilty plea by a defendant must be made freely and voluntarily.  See Ex parte Evans, 690 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).  Before accepting a defendant’s plea of guilty, the trial court must admonish the defendant either orally or in writing concerning the consequences of the entry of such a plea.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005).  The purpose of such admonishments is to ensure that the defendant’s plea is made knowingly and voluntarily.  See Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  The trial court need only substantially comply with article 26.13(a).  See id. art. 26.13(c) (Vernon Supp. 2005).

            A complaint on appeal that the trial court failed to properly admonish the appellant on the range of punishment must be preserved at trial.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Alexander v. State, Nos. 12-04-00074-CR, 12-04-00075-CR, 2005 WL 2096488, at *3 (Tex. App.–Tyler August 31, 2005, pet. dism’d, untimely filed) (not designated for publication).  In the case at hand, the record does not reflect that Appellant made any objection to the trial court’s admonishment on range of punishment.  Thus, we hold that Appellant has failed to preserve the error, if any, of which he complains on appeal.²  Appellant’s sole issue is overruled.

Disposition

            Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in each cause.

                                                                                                    SAM GRIFFITH   

                                                                                                               Justice

Opinion delivered July 31, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Appellant does not argue that he was improperly admonished with regard to his guilty plea to theft by check.

² Even had Appellant preserved error, the outcome of this appeal would not change.  When a record shows that the trial court delivered an incorrect admonishment regarding the range of punishment, and the actual sentence lies within both the actual and misstated maximum, substantial compliance is attained.  Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  In the instant cases, since the life sentences imposed on Appellant lie within the range of punishment stated in the trial court’s admonishment and in the unstated enhanced punishment range, the trial court substantially complied with Article 26.13(a).  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03(b) (Vernon 2003); compare Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32(a) (Vernon 2003) with Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2005).