## Facts

- Randall Craig McCravy was indicted in Texas for attempting to commit burglary of a building owned by Martin H. Ayers.
- The indictment alleged that on or about February 15, 1979, McCravy “did … attempt to enter a building … by turning off electrical power to said building and climbing to the roof of said building to gain access,” while having the specific intent to commit burglary.
- McCravy pleaded guilty before the trial court (without a jury) and was convicted of attempted burglary.
- The trial court assessed punishment at five years’ confinement.
- McCravy did not file a motion to quash the indictment in the trial court.
- On appeal, McCravy argued that the indictment was fundamentally defective because it alleged no more than “mere preparation” and therefore failed to allege an offense of criminal attempt.
- McCravy also complained that the trial court did not fully comply with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 26.13 when admonishing him before accepting his guilty plea.
- A panel initially reversed the conviction; the State sought rehearing, and the Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately decided the case en banc, affirming the conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether, when challenged for the first time on appeal, an attempted-burglary indictment alleging an attempt to enter a building “by turning off electrical power … and climbing to the roof … to gain access,” with specific intent to commit burglary, is fundamentally sufficient to allege an offense (i.e., more than mere preparation).
2. Whether noncompliance with certain article 26.13 guilty-plea admonishments requires reversal absent a record showing the defendant was misled or harmed, particularly where there was no plea-bargain punishment recommendation.

## Decision

- The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (en banc) affirmed the conviction and five-year sentence.
- The court held the indictment was fundamentally sufficient because it alleged specific intent to commit burglary and described acts that constituted a direct movement toward unlawful entry, not merely preparatory conduct.
- The court held that any article 26.13 admonishment deficiency did not require reversal on this record because there was no showing that McCravy was misled or harmed (including in the absence of a punishment recommendation tied to a plea bargain).
- In reaching its attempt-indictment ruling, the court relied on its modern attempt-pleading cases and disapproved older authority to the extent it imposed inconsistent, more demanding pleading requirements.

## Legal Principles

- When an indictment is attacked for the first time on appeal, the reviewing court asks only whether it alleges an offense against the law; complaints about lack of detail that do not negate an offense are not treated as fundamental defects.
- A criminal-attempt indictment is fundamentally adequate if it alleges (1) the defendant’s specific intent to commit a named offense and (2) an act that tends toward commission of that offense and is more than mere preparation.
- For fundamental sufficiency, an attempt indictment need not plead every constituent element of the completed offense so long as it alleges an attempt to commit that offense with the required intent and an act toward its commission.
- Article 26.13 errors in guilty-plea admonishments do not call for automatic reversal; reversal depends on whether the record shows the defendant was unaware of the consequences of the plea or was misled or harmed by the omission or defect.
- Where article 26.13(a)(2) (concerning the nonbinding nature of prosecutorial recommendations) is implicated, the absence of a plea-bargain punishment recommendation supports a finding of no harm from a missing or incomplete admonition on that point.

## Conclusion

McCravy’s conviction for attempted burglary was affirmed because, even though he raised the challenge only on appeal, the indictment alleged a criminal attempt by stating both a specific intent to commit burglary and concrete acts directed toward entry (shutting off power and climbing to the roof to gain access). The court also declined to reverse for incomplete article 26.13 admonishments because the record did not show that McCravy was misled or otherwise harmed, including given the lack of a plea-bargain punishment recommendation.


McCravy v. State, 642 S.W.2d 450 (1980) (en banc)