In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-18-00068-CR JOHNNY EUGENE RAY, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 27569 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION When the County Court of Lamar County revoked Johnny Eugene Ray, Jr.’s misdemeanor probation, 1 it ordered Ray to surrender to the Lamar County jail by 9:00 a.m. on the following Monday, October 16, 2017, to begin serving his ninety-day sentence. After Ray failed to surrender, he was arrested on October 27, 2017. As a result of Ray’s failure to surrender as ordered by the county court, Ray was charged with unauthorized absence from a community correction facility, a state-jail felony. 2 After Ray was arraigned in the presence of a jury, he pled guilty, and the punishment phase was heard by the jury. In accord with the jury’s verdict, Ray was sentenced to twenty-four months’ confinement in a state-jail facility and assessed a $10,000.00 fine. On appeal, Ray complains that the trial court committed harmful error by failing to admonish him regarding the range of punishment and the possible effects of his guilty plea on his immigration status, 3 in failing to ensure that his plea was voluntary, 4 and in failing to secure a waiver of his right to trial by jury. 5,6 Because we find that the trial court’s judgment addresses all 1 Although this is technically community supervision, we use “probation” because that is the term most commonly used. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.113 (West 2016). 3 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13(a)(1), (4) (West Supp. 2017). 4 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13(b) (West Supp. 2017). 5 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.13(a) (West Supp. 2017). 6 Ray combines all of these complaints in a single issue. A multifarious issue is one that raises more than one specific ground of error. In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875, 894 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. denied). We have repeatedly warned litigants to refrain from raising multifarious points of error. See, e.g., In re Guardianship of Moon, 216 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.); Newby v. State, 169 S.W.3d 413, 414 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d). Failure to heed our warnings runs the risk of having any multifarious issue(s) being summarily overruled. Newby, 169 S.W.3d at 414; Harris v. State, 133 S.W.3d 760, 764 n.3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, pet. ref’d); 2 of his complaints and that Ray has not overcome the presumption of the regularity of the judgment, we will overrule Ray’s issues. However, because we find that the trial court erred in assessing Ray costs for his court-appointed attorney, we will modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting those costs and affirm its judgment, as modified. I. Background After the jury had been chosen, but before any testimony, the trial court was notified by ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals