From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garrett v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Aug 30, 2004
No. 05-03-01516-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2004)

Opinion

No. 05-03-01516-CR

Opinion Filed August 30, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-48839-R. Affirmed.

Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG.


OPINION


After entering an open plea of guilty, Eric Lamont Garrett was convicted of aggravated robbery by the trial court. The court assessed punishment at forty-seven years' imprisonment. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his guilty plea. Specifically, appellant argues that: (1) his statement was given without benefit of an oath to tell the truth, and thus, has no evidentiary value; and (2) his lack of knowledge about the prospective intended use of a firearm or of force by the co-defendant meant that at best the evidence proved a theft offense, not a robbery. The State contends that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated robbery.

1. Applicable Law

When a defendant voluntarily enters a plea of guilty, we do not apply the Jackson "rationality" test in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. See Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). 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 the defendant's guilt. See Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). When a defendant pleads guilty, the State must introduce sufficient evidence into the record to support the plea and show the defendant is guilty. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Such evidence becomes the basis for the trial court's judgment. Id. For example, in Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex.Crim.App. 19791), the appellant admitted at the time of her plea that she had committed the offense as it was alleged in the indictment and was pleading guilty because she was guilty of the offense. This admission constituted a judicial confession which the trial court found sufficient, standing alone, to support defendant's guilty plea. Id.

2. Application of Law to Facts

Appellant admitted at the time of his guilty plea hearing that the allegations in the indictment were "true and correct" and that he was pleading guilty because "he was part of what happened that night." According to Dinnery, appellant's confession constitutes a judicial confession and is sufficient to support appellant's guilty plea. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.


Summaries of

Garrett v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Aug 30, 2004
No. 05-03-01516-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2004)
Case details for

Garrett v. State

Case Details

Full title:ERIC LAMONT GARRETT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Aug 30, 2004

Citations

No. 05-03-01516-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2004)