Dennis Keith Brooks v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00269-CR
NO. 02-14-00270-CR
DENNIS KEITH BROOKS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. 1257517D, 1292820D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ON REHEARING
----------
We have reviewed Appellant’s motion for rehearing, asserting that the
judicial confession signed by Appellant Dennis Keith Brooks was not admitted
into evidence. We deny the motion for rehearing. We withdraw our March 26,
2015 opinion and judgment and substitute the following to make it clear that the
trial court took judicial notice of the judicial confession.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Brooks pleaded guilty to two separate felony offenses of driving while
intoxicated, and the trial court sentenced him to two years’ confinement for each
offense with the sentences to run concurrently. In his sole point, Brooks argues
that the State presented no evidence against him when he entered his guilty
pleas, and thus there is no evidence supporting his guilty pleas. We will affirm.
The appellate standard of review announced in Jackson v. Virginia2 is not
applicable when the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enters a
plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Chindaphone v. State, 241 S.W.3d 217, 219
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d). A sufficiency review on appeal of a
guilty plea is confined to determining whether there is sufficient evidence to
support the judgment of guilt under article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (West 2005). The appellate
court will affirm the trial court’s judgment if the State introduced evidence that
embraces every essential element of the charged offense and is sufficient to
establish the defendant’s guilt. Chindaphone, 241 S.W.3d at 219.
No person can be convicted of a felony except on the verdict of a jury duly
rendered and recorded or when the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere and has, in writing in open court, waived his right to trial by jury in
accordance with articles 1.13 and 1.14, provided that the State presents
sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt and that the court accepts the
2
443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979).
2
evidence as the basis for its judgment. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15. A
trial court cannot render a felony conviction based on a guilty plea without
sufficient evidence to support the charged offense. Menefee v. State, 287
S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15.
A judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction
based on a guilty plea and satisfies the requirements of article 1.15 as long as
the judicial confession embraces every element of the charged offense.
Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 13; Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (op. on reh’g); Chindaphone, 241 S.W.3d at 219. When
the defendant specifically states in the judicial confession, “I have read the
indictment or information filed in this case and I committed each and every act
alleged therein,” the judicial confession alone is sufficient evidence to support the
guilty plea under article 1.15 of the code of criminal procedure. Dinnery, 592
S.W.2d at 353; Chindaphone, 241 S.W.3d at 220.
Here, Brooks executed a judicial confession in each case that specifically
states,
I have read the indictment or information filed in this case and I
committed each and every act alleged therein, except those acts
waived by the State. All facts alleged in the indictment or
information are true and correct. I am guilty of the instant offense as
well as all lesser included offenses.
On the page of the written plea admonishments immediately following the judicial
confession, the following paragraph appears:
3
In open court we join and approve the waiver of jury trial . . .
and the stipulations of evidence pursuant to Art. 1.15, Code of
Criminal Procedure. . . . It is agreed that the Court may take judicial
notice of this document and the Court takes judicial notice of same.
The signatures of Brooks’s attorney, the prosecutor, and the trial judge appear
after the paragraph. The trial court’s judicial notice of a judicial confession
satisfies the requirement of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 1.15 that
evidence be introduced to support a plea of guilty. See Chindaphone, 241
S.W.3d at 219 (stating that when trial court takes judicial notice of a judicial
confession, the State is not required to introduce the judicial confession into
evidence). Because Brooks executed a judicial confession in each case
acknowledging that he had read the indictment and had committed every act
alleged in the indictment and because the trial court took judicial notice of each
confession, we hold that sufficient evidence exists to support Brooks’s guilty
pleas. See Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 13; see also Dinnery, 592 S.W.2d at 353;
Chindaphone, 241 S.W.3d at 220. We therefore overrule Brooks’s sole point and
affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/s/ Sue Walker
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 14, 2015
4