Opinion
No. 05-04-01181-CR
Opinion Filed April 6, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-57234-JT.
Affirm.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, FITZGERALD and RICHTER.
OPINION
Ramon Ceja waived a jury trial and entered a non-negotiated guilty plea before the court to possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount over 400 grams. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (f) (Vernon 2003). The trial court sentenced appellant to twenty years' confinement. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court did not comply with the requirements of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In his first point of error, appellant argues the trial court violated articles 1.13 and 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because appellant did not orally waive his right to a jury and no other jury waiver is in the record. The record has been supplemented with a copy of the admonishment form signed by all of the parties, attorneys, and the judge. The form contains appellant's jury waiver. We overrule appellant's first point of error. In his second point of error, appellant argues there is no evidence that the judicial confession contained in the clerk's record is the same confession referred to by the judge, and there was no factual summary in the court's file. The State responds that appellant's arguments are moot because the trial court admitted into evidence a jury waiver and a judicial confession. When a defendant pleads guilty, the State must introduce sufficient evidence into the record to support the plea and show the defendant is guilty, and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see also Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). We do not apply the Jackson "rationality" test in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence when a defendant voluntarily enters a plea of guilty. See Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d at 791. Rather, we affirm the trial court's judgment if the evidence introduced embraces every essential element of the offense charged and is sufficient to establish a defendant's guilt. See Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant, in writing, waives the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses and consents to the introduction of documentary evidence in support of the judgment. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15. The clerk's record contains appellant's signed judicial confession. A judicial confession admitted into evidence and contained in the clerk's record is sufficient to prove appellant's guilt. See Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Appellant testified his attorney explained all of the papers to him before he signed them, and he understood everything he had signed. Moreover, both Officer Tim Robbins and appellant testified during the punishment phase of the trial. Appellant testified that one of his friends made the actual drug transaction with a confidential informant, and appellant allowed them to use his auto repair shop for delivery of the cocaine. Appellant claimed he was to be paid $1000 for use of his shop. However, appellant admitted he was the person shown on a surveillance videotape negotiating the price of the drugs and moving the drugs further into his shop. Appellant also admitted that on a previous occasion, he had delivered a small amount of narcotics to the same confidential informant. Robbins testified that appellant had a five-gallon bucket filled with cocaine in appellant's auto repair shop. A videotape of the delivery of the cocaine to appellant was entered into evidence. The guilty plea proceeding is a unitary proceeding, and we may consider all of the evidence presented in determining whether it is sufficient to support the plea. See Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d 446, 450 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). We conclude the trial court complied with the requirements of 1.15 and that the evidence is sufficient to support the possession with intent to deliver cocaine conviction. See Stone, 919 S.W.2d at 427. We overrule appellant's second point of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.