-
500 -/S Mo. rp-osoi-1* ORIGINAL SONS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUN 26 2015 50*-fS 5 0V-fR ~7fle 6-rA-re op -re.YA.-e> %m 565-fS No. os-m-ocf=fi%-cfi^± /^.os--//333-0^; a£>. c&-m~6fb3y
740 S.W.2d 4462-6^; fr5-5MZQ-U-; pl3>-4(9o -5S /Wo fk-Tisr-xO^S -life. CouA-T ts &sfrc£\rf TttE. zRa&g-fx&Jt M^zRniMCs' !he> CohJ^-zcrxo^Js To*?, ?KPOUj-£*rr use. of &&S€&*u»4. Or ti>&Jn-Xf:yit4Cr' 2^J=b^A-7A"T2i^ CF AJ €LD*3&4y Pef&o^l, 1=oA&efky By CJtea<.f fbA&ety e>/ cn&u^ cfr /w esuoefij-v PsfizoN., fQA&oQy cF H&Jx fc6*A£>~ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS . ~. -^ — JUN 26 2015 Abel Acosta, Cierk Asio PlePcxeO &jL-ZLrry To i&e Pbu.& WzW^- cffeMGS ' f?>y Qk&J^ C >7 /ns> ~Te*4 6*) YeA^S -zmiMzsokI h-'k^tr ok/ 7Utz ffcteA-Tt^l-ZULr- -TM.EB fi) fd/KG£fiy dOtJ^ZCTZ0Kl<>. "7% OoKlVzer-zo^s WeRe. ApF-av~x<=£> (2>y 7T-fe CouRt of APP&sla., pErT^ l7L?rr(izX-T Cfr TeXA^ AT D*LLA& 6)4 MA*X-l4- 3/; 0.O1Z-. •7#£. htiTC-rzj»4'b> Wo^s APr'-iRneo &y Ttte. CouR^ or 4f^&^cs 'ftsF^Pk cr&rf*&crr ^p Te&k$> At nAU-A*> oN MAte.t±- 3/, Sols'. ^o Mcrfzo*J6> fbfiL. fe.'/-fexWzi^c WAS Fzoeo &/ f^zrrzDKli3/\.- 7&T-I=r-xe>4 a^o feNo&z^ zTUO^neMr e&ALt&e. a? 7Zfe TftP^SPeft- dfoOgQ . "77% ~7a.XA6 Cot4 Ce. CAzt*\, PRot. AnH. Article. 32c o I (fie&ixzAsct-tQ- A<$ -it4,rxu=m^f^T To he, T>LSMl$<,eC> 2F- NJcr^ ffeesaMroD Zt4 Tfl& ^S^Z^-z^Gr--CouFCT UKiUE.^ 3LT ~?S> lR^H>feAfl£C> To At^cSTVosA^ . &>u&?. "72$*. CoOe Cftzr\ fRoCibj< A^txjuU. f.l&. -fi& Ot4Ly Me,CiAA<4-t<>r\ ftA~ TWSFfeg^zM^ Tffe PoWefL To 'Tfi-y A 7T3-OM/ ZS &y AH &*£&< &F T/^fiHsf&K Co/A&zKieQ Wzmf /W <3R£>&K Or fiE£e-ziS&4A4 a$p&^ i%)£t\te±y T/^A"t22^2>i(^\TuA£5^ZCT3^ CMeft^ TVe. CA6e,. TTfe 35^>/uo Confer A^UjejPt^ T/fe a*>e_ 0y zssoasifc- lite. -zU^rAt^r &*&e. WA5 ^QHisst^aD to ^6^"-7^ Pzs-ri^zczr coupa- cf DAU-AtS <2ouKtry,~feyA6>. "3[xA-zSfyz4rr%^s4. WAS -T#o£ •z^lsje.^-mf^ Is! T#g ^mAT0. -7ffe 2WSTAMT TVfioU&H- 7#e 5^-r/^ ^S^ 3u£>Crh7&f~r. /-k>W- &efi^)'T%ef& -£<, hknu^G- z4 -Tfle (^TciyVb. 5/-te>WzHGr- T^rr ^Urzso-zCTZ2»4 WA4 ^v/ei^ 7^Wsfe^O /3/ 3-0^TPr OiSTtioocr £&jflcr To -#*£ <8%l ST t>Ls- •T&ZCT Cou/^r. -Vfozk&oiig, 2rr APP&sfiS T^AT Tfe ^C,S-7t+ EZLST/hzrT Ccufcr *fi£TA^$*Jukz<,Z>-ZCT-ZG>4, "Just As, AArr-uCLtE f./ j-r &— 3l SW 3dL <2*-l CT£)C. SXzrt . APP. %°°l ); /fe/Wfr Y.<$TATe._, 8^2. SUJUJI &*?.&<&. C/**+\. APP> W?3). A D3F££?r Wttzolr &<&4DeAS A SehtrehJaz. VozO MAy /htz (?Az<&C> &>^ 7*fe frfi&r T-z^le. o^i AfipeAU. jbeArnl * ^TArs., 5/7 5W2> . /*?*?/). -7Tfe£ ^n^+r -to /gfe TfkusO *±4 A CoulSt -jiiAt /4At> pR&f&ny ACjteAA3j±£C> 3uK3-,Sc>~Z£_-rz£>h4 oVeA^ A CAAe. -zs> Afbt&L-vcre. H&ftzrj v. -fTAieit £s7 -SWZJLtts- ("efeX.cAM*L. AfiP. Hciri)^ $u£i&~ A &Z£,frr To •tt$PUz?*l&4.7AT--Z£>hl r-s hkrr eP-r-zaUM-, zrr zt> AuwAys f?S3iXJcxfisO. 'j£c/>_ ® 2/1. Gfy&SL. zU fHS /^CAAi^ -zs h> /J <&• AH As- 5oU->T£ &T£rtfr Osi APfcAC-- Wz77£>tCr jM^-Xtid^ rtAz5<£& f%£ <$JU£$7Z-t>>d H4 -rite -tkzaL- iquAt- g<#. £ <£&> Pe-fx-T^s^v N^vy Cct-iPLAa+te Titer -flfe Sft( sr OzsrAzcr £auflcr ueJ&{ ae&uz/teO a~uAzscrzcrrx6*i ojgP^-hMe. Tm>-z4±4rr ca&z ,e&r /-fc MKs4oV/a£Q&£4 TfsOfr Aocnh/hrty zS A<^A J S& &,<%> H%LLf^v,^fArfe , 7¥^SW^CX^>Z (TexAPP- O^U-As J787); GaActA v. -&0rr<=> 9o! 5W2xL 7s/ flkx- AAV- McuStoU tmu-ibzsrj 199^). 77feSd CA)&<> Au- Mcx-€> 7UAcr TWg Pfze^&xr xssu-e A^as-r <3s Qa-zsO &y -nie. . /-/orJ^eA, THef Szhyiy Cz-ra -Jfc> T^-CtR- Astl£<&y*JTS Vzrt-korr Auy dcMhT-zrK>=r2a>U>±<- o/< f&xro=r&Ay AxTOcfiosy t&o^ -rUe. RRo^sz.-r^sI TV^rr A 3Z*Az.sdzctzaj^A£— £*j%£=r caj (•*) TkTZTx&J&J— A^ssj^-^ 7B/4-r TPtE. zoui&rc <*= aW&±ls> &%¥£> z*s l4oU^-vl(s- THAT Ttfg &Stj>£H.O£. XS 5U?F-c*^zz3rtT To SuPPpPg- tfe (gaxcrry ?usA •Tfe (ifptshi^s., t)AMi*ohiC>r.4-rprce Ost> 1W2JL- CtsA- Otert.<6>PP. )77i). Aur^A^AT^syi A P£FeHCAKi"r WAy 04tt6zK A 5W><^i WPrrretl •^rATemet^TJ oA Ts^T-zfy -1*4 oteA £&l*AT -yPcAxpTXALvy AO^l-zzrrzb&x- lkt$, cx>Jj>A&Li-:z-'ry ^ Arr (jzpfrr AcitHoWL Ti4 &TLL- (LLeh\&4T^ UHXST &4 AMAXzLUQ . fbTT6^ GauthtTy4 nZyAb 79fo7- f&od, . -7- DetLAAsL UhiAxzA- f&JAcry of ?&ZjuAy •THAT TUtS. Tbfte<*&Zj4Gr-xS TK-VUE A*Jr> CoRQAAT. &Q~Ox-m£> OM ~t*& Z.\*sr_ XA>y OP •OZW£ , ,2o^r He-yP&rmjJ-Ly ^uoi^z-tt&.C> Jf4Tiy-l-OLA6 CAVP71 AhlOS & AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed March 31, 2015. In The Court of appeals Jftftfj ©Strict of tEexa* at ©alias! No. 05-14-00978-CR No. 05-14-01333-CR No. 05-14-01334-CR No. 05-14-01335-CR No. 05-14-01336-CR No. 05-14-01337-CR NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-41905-U, F12-31502-U, F13-31526-U, F13-41904-U, F14-40593-U, and F14-40594-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Stoddart Nicholas Davell Amos appeals his convictions for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of an elderly person, forgery by check, forgery by check of an elderly person, forgery of a financial instrument, and tampering with a governmental record. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases and render the judgments and the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Background Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to the following offenses: fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of an elderly person (cause no. 05-14-00978-CR); forgery by check (cause nos. 05-14-01333-CR and 05-14-01334-CR); forgery by check of an elderly person (cause no. 05-14-01335-CR); forgery of financial instrument (cause no. 05-14-01336- CR); and tampering with a governmental record (cause no. 05-14-01337-CR). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 32.21(b), (d), (e-1), 32.51(b)(1), (c-1), 37.10(a)(2), (c)(2)(A) (West 2011 & Supp. 2014). Appellant also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs contained in each indictment. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment on his convictions for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of an elderly person, forgery by check of an elderly person, and tampering with a governmental record, and ten years' imprisonment on the remaining three forgery convictions. Transfer Order In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases and render the judgments because they were not transferred to its docket. Appellant argues the cases were presented to the 195th Judicial District Court, and there were no orders transferring the cases from that court to the 291st Judicial District Court where they were heard and the judgments rendered. The State responds that the trial court always had jurisdiction over these cases; therefore, no transfer orders were necessary. A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires "into all offenses liable to indictment," and hears all the testimony available before voting on whether to indict an accused. TEX. CODE CRIM. Proc. Ann. art. 20.09, 20.19 (West 2005); Ex parte Edone, , 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). A grand jury is "often characterized as an arm of the court by which it is appointed rather than an autonomous entity." Dallas Cnty. Dist. Attorney v. Doe,
969 S.W.2d 537, 542 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). After the conclusion of testimony, a grand jury votes "as to the presentment of an indictment." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Ann. art. 20.19. Following presentment, an indictment is filed in a court with competent jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to hear the case. See Hultin v. State,
171 Tex. Crim. 425,
351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961). In counties having two or more district courts, the judges of the courts may adopt rules governing the filing, numbering, and assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the courts' work they consider necessary or desirable to conduct the business of the courts. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.304 (West 2004); see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.093 (West 2013) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases). Thus, a specific district court may impanel a grand jury, but it does not necessarily follow that all cases returned by the grand jury are assigned to the impaneling court. See Bourque v. State,
156 S.W.3d 67.5, 678 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. refd). While the record shows the 195th Judicial District Court presided over the grand jury that returned the six indictments, the cases were thereafter filed in the 291st Judicial District Court. We take judicial notice that both of these courts are located in Dallas County. Nothing in the record indicates the cases were ever filed in or appeared on the trial docket of the 195th Judicial District Court. Because the 291st Judicial District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant's cases and render the judgments, we overrule appellant's first issue. Insufficient Evidence In his second issue, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for forgery by check (cause nos. 05-14-01333-CR and 05-14-01334-CR), forgery of a financial instrument (cause no. 05-14-01336-CR), and tampering with a governmental record (cause no. 05-14-01337-CR). Appellant argues there is no evidence admitted in support of his guilty pleas, in violation of article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, because the judicial confessions were not marked as exhibits in the cases. The State responds the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. Article 1.15 provides that when a defendant waives his right to a jury trial and pleads guilty, the State need only introduce sufficient evidence to support the plea and establish the defendant's guilt. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Ann. art. 1.15 (West 2005); Wright v. State,
930 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.). The supporting evidence need not prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McGill v. State,
200 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.); see Ex parte Martin,
747 S.W.2d 789, 791-92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (op. on reh'g). The evidence sufficiently supports a plea of guilty if it embraces every element of the offense charged. Stone v. State,
919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The records in these cases show the trial court admitted appellant's "signed judicial confession and stipulation of evidence in each of the six cases" without objection. Appellant's signed pleas of true to the enhancement paragraphs in each of the six cases was also admitted without objection. The judicial confessions are included in the appellate record. A judicial confession acknowledging guilt of the indictment's allegations is sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 1.15. See Dinnery v. State,
592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979. Moreover, appellant testified under oath that he committed the offenses as alleged in the indictments. Appellant's testimony embraced every essential element of the offenses charged and was sufficient evidence to establish his guilt. As such, it was sufficient to support appellant's pleas and the findings of guilt under article 1.15. See
Stone, 919 S.W.2d at 427. We overrule appellant's second issue. In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment. / Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 140978F.U05 Court of Appeals; tfitti) ©tstrtct of flfexas; at ©alia* JUDGMENT NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-00978-CR V. F13-41905-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 31st day of March, 2015. Court of Appeals; Jftftf) ©(strict of Qfcxa* at ©alias; JUDGMENT NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-01333-CR V. F13-31502-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 31st day of March, 2015. Court of gppeal* tfitti) ©tsftrtct of tEexas! at ©alias! JUDGMENT NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-01334-CR V. F13-31526-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 31st day of March, 2015. Court of Appeals! Jftftf) ©tsstrtct of Qfcxas! at ©aHas: JUDGMENT NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-01335-CR V. F13-41904-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 31st day of March, 2015. Court of iUppeals; Jftftl) ©tstrtct of Qfcxas! at ©alias! JUDGMENT NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-01336-CR V. F14-40593-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 31st day of March, 2015. -10- Court of iUppealsf Jftftl) ©tetrict of tfcexas; at ©alias! JUDGMENT NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-01337-CR V. F14-40594-U). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this March 31st of March, 2015. -11-
Document Info
Docket Number： PD-0503-15
Filed Date： 6/26/2015
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/29/2016