Terrance Adrian Campbell v. State

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Terrance Adrian Campbell Appellant Vs. No. 11-02-00222-CR B Appeal from Dallas County State of Texas Appellee Terrance Adrian Campbell entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery of an elderly person and a plea of true to the enhancement allegation that he had a prior felony conviction for burglary of a habitation. Appellant elected to enter his plea to a jury and to have the jury assess his punishment. The jury convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for 99 years. We affirm. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to properly admonish him pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2003). Specifically, appellant contends that the trial court failed to admonish him concerning the range of punishment, concerning the possibility of deportation, and concerning his mental capacity. The judgment recited that appellant was admonished as to the consequences of his guilty plea and that Ait plainly appear[ed] to the court that defendant [was] mentally competent.@ The record reflects that appellant, his counsel, and the trial court discussed punishment. Appellant rejected the State=s offer of 30 years, argued with the trial court that that was a Along time,@ and asked the trial court and the State: AAin=t no way you can go down any? Can=t you go down none?@ The trial court explained to appellant that he had two choices: either accept the 30-year offer by the State or go to trial where the jury could give him anywhere from 15 years to 99 years or life. The trial court did not admonish appellant that, if he was not a citizen of the United States, his guilty plea could result in his deportation. However, the pen packet admitted into evidence without objection stated that appellant was born in Dallas County, Texas. When the record reflects that the defendant is in fact a citizen of the United States, failure to admonish concerning deportation is harmless error. Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Duncan v. State, 6 S.W.3d 794 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet=n ref=d). Appellant did not raise the issue of his mental competency to stand trial. The trial court had the opportunity to observe appellant during the two-day proceedings and, as stated in the judgment, concluded that appellant was competent. The trial court substantially complied with the requirements of Article 26.13. Appellant has not established that the trial court erred. The sole issue is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. W. G. ARNOT, III CHIEF JUSTICE September 4, 2003 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J.