Don Curtis Grooms v. State of Texas ( 2001 )

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Don Curtis Grooms

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-01-00203-CR B Appeal from Taylor County

State of Texas

Appellee

Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault, and the trial court assessed punishment at 20 years confinement.  In his sole point of error, appellant argues that there was no evidence that appellant knew that the victim lacked the mental capacity to consent to the act.  We affirm.

Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence

Evidence is legally sufficient when, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it is sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find all the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.2000).

TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. ' 22.011(b)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2001) provides that A[a] sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if@:

the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect the other person is at the time of the sexual assault incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it.

Appellant claims that there was no evidence to support a finding that he knew that the victim was incapable of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it and that, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support his guilty plea.  However, the record reflects that appellant signed a sworn, written stipulation of evidence judicially confessing all of the elements of the offense.  A stipulation as to what witnesses would testify to had they been present at trial is sufficient to support a conviction in the context of TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2001). Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).

Appellant also argues that his testimony during the sentencing phase contradicted his guilty plea and that the trial court should have withdrawn his guilty plea sua sponte.  Appellant=s testimony did not contradict his guilty plea.  To the contrary, appellant=s testimony confirmed that he was aware of the victim=s lack of capacity to consent.  Moreover, the trial was before the trial court; and the trial court, as fact finder, was not required to withdraw appellant=s guilty plea sua sponte even if evidence contradicting the guilty plea had been introduced.  Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).

We hold that the evidence was legally sufficient to show that appellant knew that the victim=s mental capacity made her incapable of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it.  We overrule appellant=s sole point of error.

This Court=s Ruling

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

December 6, 2001

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of:  Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.