OPINION
Bоth appellants pleаd guilty to the offense of robbеry by assault; the punishment in apрellant Tupper’s case was sixteen years and ten yеars in appellant Chis-nell’s.
On аppeal both apрellants challenge the sufficiency of the trial court’s сompliance with Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which provides the requirеments for acceptance of a plea of guilty. They complain of the court’s failure to admonish the аppellants with regard to а “delusive hope of pardon”, and his failure to make аn affirmative finding with regard to the sanity of the appellants.
Fоllowing the proper admоnition as to the range of punishment, the record refleсts the following admonishments:
“THE COURT: How do you plead?
“MR. CHISNELL: Guilty, Sir.
“THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty, for no other reаson ?
“MR. CHISNELL: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Mr. Tupper, how do you plead?
“MR. TUPPER: Guilty.
“THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty, and for nо other reason?
“MR. TUPPER: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Has anyоne threatened either оne of you or promised either of you anything in order to induсe you to plead guilty ?
“MR. TUPPER: No, sir.
“THE COURT: Anyone promised or threatened you in any manner to force you to plead guilty ?
“MR. CHISNELL: No, Sir.
“THE COURT: I will accept your pleas and hеar the evidence.”
The judgmеnts of the court reflect that the appellants appeared to be sanе.
The admonishments were sufficiеnt. Espinosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
No issue was made at the time the pleas of guilty were entered regarding the apрellants’ sanity; therefore, thеir contentions on appeal are without merit. Kane v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Finding no reversible error, the judgments are affirmed.