Opinion
No. 05-09-00457-CR
Opinion Filed November 30, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F08-32783-IN.
Before Justices MORRIS, O'NEILL, FILLMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clint Edward Raley waived a jury and pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a knife. After receiving testimony during the punishment phase, the trial court found Raley guilty and assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment. In a single issue, Raley contends the evidence does not support the trial court's finding of a deadly weapon. We affirm. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Raley contends the evidence is insufficient to support a deadly weapon finding because an accomplice was the person who exhibited the knife, the complainant did not suffer any physical injury during the offense, and the State failed to prove the knife exhibited by the accomplice was a deadly weapon. The State responds that Raley's signed judicial confession is sufficient to support the deadly weapon finding. The indictment alleged Raley used or exhibited a deadly weapon, a knife, during the commission of the offense. Raley pleaded nolo contendere and judicially confessed to the offense as alleged in the indictment. Raley testified he had used alcohol and drugs on the day of the offense. Raley denied he had a weapon or gave the accomplice a weapon. Raley now argues that because he testified that he did not have a weapon or give one to the accomplice during the commission of the offense, the deadly weapon finding in the judgment should be deleted. The legal effect of a nolo contendere plea is the same as a plea of guilty. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 27.02(5) (Vernon 2006). The record contains Raley's judicial confession and stipulation of evidence that tracks the language in the indictment, including the use and exhibition of a deadly weapon. Raley's judicial confession sufficiently supports the deadly weapon finding contained in the judgment. See Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Alexander v. State, 868 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.). Notwithstanding Raley's denial of the use of a deadly weapon, the trial judge determined the credibility of and weight to be given to all of the testimony. See Harvey v. State, 135 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). We conclude that because the evidence is sufficient to support a deadly weapon finding, the trial court properly included the deadly weapon finding in the judgment. We overrule Raley's sole issue on appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment.