Salvador Bautista Gonzales v. State ( 2015 )

Opinion issued January 22, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-01037-CR
———————————
SALVADOR BAUTISTA GONZALES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1377236
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Salvador Bautista Gonzales pleaded guilty, without an agreed
recommendation as to punishment, to the felony offense of intoxication assault
with a deadly weapon. TEX. PENAL CODE § 49.07. The trial court assessed
punishment at 10 years in prison. On appeal, Gonzales argues that the trial court
erred by failing to admonish him regarding the consequences of his plea and by
accepting his plea without sufficient independent evidence of his guilt.
Background
While driving a car, Gonzales attempted to make a left turn into a grocery
store parking lot. Instead, he struck a motorcycle driven by Carlton Richardson,
severely injuring him. A blood test later revealed that Gonzales’s blood-alcohol
level was 0.19.
Gonzales was charged with intoxication assault with a deadly weapon. He
entered a plea of guilty as to the charge of assault, as well as a plea of true to the
deadly-weapon allegation. At the time of the plea, there was no agreement as to
punishment. Gonzales asked the court to assess punishment after the preparation of
a presentence investigation report.
At the sentencing hearing, the State introduced the report. Gonzales and his
sister also testified. After considering the evidence, the trial court found that
Gonzales used a deadly weapon during the offense, suspended his license and
privilege to drive for two years, and sentenced him to ten years in prison.
2
Analysis
I. Admonishment of plea consequences
Gonzales asserts that the trial court erred by accepting his plea of guilty
because the record did not indicate that he received the admonishments required by
article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially, the clerk’s record
on appeal did not contain any of the paperwork relating to Gonzales’s plea.
However, the State requested that the district clerk supplement the record, and a
supplemental clerk’s record was filed, containing written admonishments and
Gonzales’s plea. Gonzales filed no reply or supplemental brief complaining about
the adequacy of the admonishments reflected in the supplemental record. Because
the record indicates that Gonzales received the admonishments before the trial
court accepted his plea of guilty, and because the admonishments substantially
comply with article 26.13, we overrule Gonzales’s first issue. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13(c).
II. Evidence of guilt in support of guilty plea
Gonzales also argues that the trial court erred by accepting his plea of guilty
without sufficient independent evidence of his guilt. The Code of Criminal
Procedure requires the State to present evidence in support of a guilty plea. Id. art.
1.15; Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). But a judicial
3
confession that embraces every essential element of the charged offense is
sufficient to support a guilty plea. Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 13; Staggs v. State, 314
S.W.3d 155, 159 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). Although
Gonzales contends that the record does not contain independent evidence, the
supplemental clerk’s record contains his written judicial confession. Gonzales filed
no reply or supplemental brief complaining about the sufficiency of the confession
contained in the supplemental record.
The written confession embraces the elements of the charged offense.
Accordingly, we overrule Gonzales’s second issue. See Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at
13.
Conclusion
Having overruled Gonzales’s two issues, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Michael Massengale
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4