Opinion
No. 05-08-01406-CR
Opinion issued October 28, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 416-81732-07.
Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this case, a jury convicted Jesse James Janasik of felony DWI. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motions for instructed verdict. We affirm the trial court's judgment. 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. Before the jury, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charged DWI offense but true to the two jurisdictional paragraphs in the indictment that alleged he had two previous DWI convictions. At the conclusion of testimony by the State's witnesses, appellant moved for an instructed verdict on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient for any reasonable juror to conclude he was driving while intoxicated. The trial court overruled the motion. After both sides rested and closed, appellant moved for another instructed verdict on the grounds that the State had not proved intoxication as it was alleged in the indictment. The trial court overruled the motion. In the trial court's charge, the jury was instructed that appellant had entered into a stipulation about the previous DWI convictions alleged by the State. The jury was instructed to find the element of the previous DWI convictions true beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant complains in his sole point of error that the trial court erred in denying his motions for instructed verdict because the State wholly failed to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. He specifically asserts that because the record is devoid of any oral or written stipulation of the requisite previous DWI convictions alleged to support the felony DWI conviction, the trial court erred in denying his motions for instructed verdict. Appellant acknowledges his pleas of true to the previous DWI convictions, but argues such pleas are not testimony under oath and have no evidentiary value. We review a challenge to the denial of a motion for instructed verdict as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence. See Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The State is relieved of its burden to prove a previous conviction alleged for enhancement when the defendant pleads true to the enhancement paragraph. Manning v. State, 112 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). A defendant who has pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the allegations contained in the enhancement paragraph. Id.; see also Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Because appellant pleaded true to the DWI offenses alleged for enhancement, he may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on this matter. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motions for instructed verdict. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.