eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2003-10

Nicholas Anthony Conner v. State ( 2003 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   NO. 07-02-0459-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
OCTOBER 23, 2003
______________________________
NICHOLAS ANTHONY CONNOR, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
NO. TRN 9062416934; HONORABLE CHARLES D. CARVER, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, appellant challenges his conviction, after a guilty plea, of murder by
the use of a deadly weapon, and the resulting court-assessed punishment of 20 years
1
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by
assignment. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003).
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. In doing
so, he presents two issues for our decision. Those issues are: 1) the evidence is both
legally and factually insufficient to sustain his conviction, and 2) the trial court erred in
admitting his confession “because the issue of voluntariness precludes the trial court” from
its admission. Disagreeing that reversal is required, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
Because the issues are interrelated, we will discuss them together. In appeals in
which both legal and factual sufficiency questions are presented, we must first determine
if the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict. Clewis v. State,
    922 S.W.2d 126
    ,
133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). In determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must
view it in a light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational trier of fact
could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Curry v. State,
    30 S.W.3d 394
    , 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In making that determination, we consider
all of the evidence presented, whether properly or improperly admitted, Green v. State,
    893 S.W.2d 536
    , 640 (Tex. Crim. App.1991), and without examining the factfinder’s
weighing of the evidence, determine if there is evidence supporting the verdict.
    Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 132 
    n.10. A sustention of the legal sufficiency challenge requires a
judgment of acquittal.
In contrast, resolution of a factual sufficiency challenge requires the reviewing court
to view all of the evidence in a neutral light, favoring neither party, Johnson v. State, 23
    2 S.W.3d 1
    , 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), and it may only set aside the verdict if it is so contrary
to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
    Clewis, 922 S.W.2d at 129
    . Moreover, in conducting the review, the reviewing court must give
appropriate weight to the factfinder’s conclusion so as not to substantially intrude upon the
factfinder’s role as the sole judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony.
Jones v. State,
    944 S.W.2d 642
    , 647-48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied,
    522 U.S. 832
    ,
    118 S. Ct. 100
    ,
    139 L. Ed. 2d 54 
    (1997).
Where, as here, a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere, the State must
introduce sufficient evidence to support the plea and show the defendant is guilty. Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2003). See also Ex parte Martin,
    747 S.W.2d 789 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in
writing waives the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses and
consents to the introduction of documentary evidence in support of the judgment. The
waiver and consent must be approved by the trial court in writing and be filed with the
papers of the cause. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15.
At the time of the hearing on his guilty plea, appellant admitted that he was entering
his plea of his own free will after consultation with his attorney, he admitted that he
understood the charge against him, the range of punishment attached to the crime and,
even understanding these matters, he still persisted in continuing with the plea. This
record is amply sufficient to show that all applicable statutory requirements in connection
3
with appellant’s guilty plea were complied with. The evidence is both legally and factually
sufficient to sustain the judgment of the trial court in all respects. See Dinnery v. State,
592 S.W.2 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Potts v. State,
    571 S.W.2d 180 
    (Tex. Crim. App.
1978); Sexton v. State,
    476 S.W.2d 320 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); and Soto v. State,
    456 S.W.2d 389 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1970).
Appellant’s issues are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
John T. Boyd
Senior Justice
Do not publish.
4