Robert Worley Kyrias v. State
05-15-00199-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 4, 2015Background
- Robert Worley Kyrias waived a jury and pleaded guilty to state-jail felony theft (< $1,500, based on two prior theft convictions) and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.
- The trial court sentenced Kyrias to two years in a state jail (theft) and 180 days in county jail (criminal mischief).
- The court did not give the Article 26.13 admonishments (including the applicable range of punishment) orally or in writing at the plea or at sentencing.
- The State did not file a notice to enhance punishment; the prior thefts were elements elevating theft to a state-jail felony, not enhancement allegations.
- Kyrias testified at sentencing that he was guilty and acknowledged prior convictions; the State relied on his criminal history to argue lack of harm from missing admonishments.
- The Court of Appeals found the failure to admonish was complete (no substantial compliance) and that the omission was not harmless; it reversed and remanded both judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty pleas were involuntary because the trial court failed to admonish on punishment range under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.13 | Kyrias: no admonishment on punishment range rendered pleas involuntary; he might have chosen differently | State: admits no admonishment but contends omission was harmless given Kyrias's testimony and extensive criminal history | Court: Failure to give Article 26.13 admonishment was complete (no substantial compliance) and not harmless; reversible error — judgments reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (purpose of article 26.13 admonishments is to ensure constitutionally valid pleas)
- VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional admonishment errors)
- Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (substantial compliance creates prima facie voluntariness; defendant must show lack of understanding and harm)
- Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (complete failure to give an article 26.13 admonishment cannot amount to substantial compliance)
- Anderson v. State, 182 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate review asks whether there is fair assurance the plea decision would not have changed if proper admonishment given)
- Moore v. State, 916 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (distinguishing prior convictions as elements elevating offense level from enhancement paragraphs under section 12.42)