Robert Worley Kyrias v. State
05-15-00221-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Robert Worley Kyrias waived a jury and pleaded guilty to state-jail felony theft (property < $1,500) and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.
- Trial court sentenced Kyrias to two years in a state jail (theft) and 180 days in county jail (criminal mischief).
- Appellant contends his pleas were involuntary because the trial court never gave the article 26.13 admonishment on the applicable ranges of punishment before accepting his guilty pleas.
- The State concedes no admonishment was given but argues Kyrias was not harmed and would not have pleaded differently given his criminal history and plea agreement.
- The record contains plea papers, jury waivers, stipulations, and appellant’s testimony admitting guilt and prior convictions, but no oral or written article 26.13 punishment-range admonishments.
- Court of Appeals reviews whether the omission was harmless under the non-constitutional harm standard (Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b)) and ultimately reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to give the article 26.13 admonishment on applicable punishment ranges before accepting guilty pleas | Kyrias: court did not admonish on punishment ranges; pleas involuntary | State: although no admonishment, Kyrias was not harmed and would still have pled given his record and plea deal | Court: failure was complete (no substantial compliance); harm cannot be reasonably denied; reversal and remand |
| Whether appellant could have been uncertain about enhancement/habitual status | Kyrias: lack of admonishment left uncertainty whether punishment would be enhanced | State: prior convictions and record show appellant understood consequences | Court: prior thefts were elements elevating the offense, not enhancement notices; record does not show State filed enhancement notice; appellant’s concern about habitual status is without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Carranza v. State, 980 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (article 26.13 admonishments ensure pleas are constitutionally valid)
- VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (applies non-constitutional harm review under Rule 44.2(b))
- Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (substantial compliance shifts burden to defendant to show lack of understanding and harm)
- Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (complete failure to admonish cannot be substantial compliance)
- Moore v. State, 916 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (prior theft convictions can be elements elevating offense level)
- Anderson v. State, 182 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explains "fair assurance" standard for harmlessness under Rule 44.2(b))