Opinion
No. 05-09-00905-CR
Opinion Filed September 29, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F09-00131-SV.
Before Justices BRIDGES, O'NEILL, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Percy Ernest Hill appeals his conviction for murder. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in "its review" of the evidence because the evidence does not show appellant was guilty of murder, but rather a lesser-included offense. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant pleaded guilty to murder and signed a judicial confession admitting he was guilty of the offense exactly as alleged in the indictment. In exchange for his plea, the State reduced the offense from capital murder to murder and dismissed a related arson case. Appellant now asserts the evidence presented at his guilty plea hearing does not show he had the intent to kill, but shows only that he acted with criminal negligence or, at most, recklessly. Thus, he asserts the trial court should not have found him guilty of murder, but rather negligent homicide or manslaughter. When a defendant pleads guilty to an offense, the federal and state constitutional sufficiency of the evidence standards do not apply. McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 331 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). However, the State is bound by statute to support a plea with sufficient evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (West). It is well-established a judicial confession is alone sufficient to support this statutory requirement. Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Here, appellant signed a judicial confession admitting his guilt to the offense, including the element that he intended to kill the victim. However, at the plea hearing, he testified that he did not intend to harm anyone. However, appellant did not seek to withdraw his plea. Nor has he ever contended the plea was not voluntary. Instead, he asserts the trial court should have found him guilty of a lesser-offense as authorized by Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). However, Moon merely acknowledges a trial court's authority to consider evidence presented at plea hearing and to find a defendant guilty of a lesser offense. See Moon, 572 S.W.2d at 682. It does not require or allow this Court to perform any type of additional evidentiary review. See McGill, 200 S.W.3d at 330. If appellant wanted to challenge evidence of his guilt, he was required to seek to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at 331. Because appellant signed a judicial confession, we conclude the State sufficiently proved the offense under the relevant standard. We overrule appellant's points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.