Davison, Anthony Ray
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 793
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a building; enhancement paragraphs made him eligible for a second‑degree felony.
- Trial court did not admonish the range of punishment at the guilty plea due to enhancement; sentencing proceeded four months later with 20‑year term and no fine.
- Appellant raised two direct‑appeal complaints: (i) improper admonishment of the range; (ii) plea involuntary under due process.
- Court of Appeals held: (i) admonishment error existed but was harmless under Rule 44.2(b); (ii) constitutional claim forfeited or also harmless under Rule 44.2(b).
- Texas Supreme Court granted discretionary review to address all three holdings and affirmed the court of appeals, clarifying distinctions among statutory admonishment harm, Boykin/ Due Process claims, and harmless error standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the failure to admonish the range of punishment was harmless | Appellant argues harm under 44.2(b) must account for knowledge at plea time. | State contends appellate record shows awareness through plea memorandum and later events, supporting harm finding. | Yes, but on proper analysis of knowledge at plea time; correct harm analysis aligned with statutory admonishment rule. |
| Whether Boykin-based due‑process claim is forfeited or addressed on the merits | Appellant asserts Boykin error is not forfeitable and should be reviewed on the merits. | State contends Boykin error is forfeitable or de facto harmless. | Boykin error is reviewed on the merits; not forfeited, and record does not demonstrate a due‑process violation. |
| Whether any constitutional error is harmless under Rule 44.2(a) versus 44.2(b) | Constitutional error should be analyzed under 44.2(a) (harmless beyond reasonable doubt). | Statutory admonishment harms analyzed under 44.2(b); constitutional harms require 44.2(a). | Constitutional error, if any, is not shown; merits require 44.2(a) analysis, not 44.2(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (due process requires knowing, intelligent plea and record to reflect understanding of rights and consequences)
- Aguirre-Mata II, 125 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (admonishments under Article 26.13 are not themselves constitutional rights; harm analysis differs from Boykin)
- Aguirre-Mata I, 992 S.W.2d 495 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (initial discussion of Article 26.13 admonishments and voluntariness)
- Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (preservation/forfeiture aspects; Boykin issue not clearly required to be preserved)
- Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (evidence of awareness of range supports non‑harmful outcome despite lack of admonition)
- VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (admonishments are not constitutionally required; relevance to harm analysis)
- Gardner v. State, 164 S.W.3d 393 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (harm analysis distinctions for Boykin/awareness)