Opinion
No. 05-06-00493-CR
March 19, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F06-00127-WR.
Before Chief Justice, THOMAS and Justices, WRIGHT and Francis.
OPINION
Arthur Ervin Johnson waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a weight. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at fifteen years' imprisonment. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in not sua sponte withdrawing his guilty plea. We affirm the trial court's judgment. The trial court admonished appellant both orally and in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2006); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). At the plea hearing, appellant's signed judicial confession and stipulation of evidence that he assaulted his wife with a deadly weapon, by repeatedly hitting her in the head with a weight, was admitted without objection. During the sentencing hearing, appellant testified that at the time of the assault, he was working twelve hours a day, seven days a week, and his wife did not work. When appellant found out his wife was having an affair, he became depressed and angry. Appellant testified he had bipolar disorder, but did not take medication because he could not afford to buy it. Appellant testified he used alcohol and cocaine to "calm" himself. On the night of the assault, appellant had packed his clothes and was leaving the house. His wife called him into the bedroom to talk, then taunted appellant with details about her relationship with her new boyfriend. Appellant lost his temper and hit his wife. Appellant testified he did not remember hitting his wife in the head with a five-pound weight. Appellant testified he could not recall "step-by-step" what happened during the assault because "[e]verything just went quiet . . . I was out of it. I knew I was going crazy." Appellant testified he did not realize what he had done until his wife's son hit appellant in the shoulder. During cross-examination, appellant admitted his wife was leaving him the night of the assault, and that one month before the assault, he had "punched" his wife in the face for not cooking for him. Appellant argues the trial court erred in not withdrawing his guilty plea because his testimony raised an issue that he may have been under the influence of a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense. Appellant asserts that because he had bipolar disorder, was not on medication for the disorder, and was not aware of what had occurred during the assault, his "sanity" was an issue and his guilty plea should have been withdrawn. The State responds that appellant has not preserved the issue for review and, alternatively, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte withdraw appellant's guilty plea. Appellant did not complain about the trial court's alleged failure to withdraw his guilty plea during the proceedings or in his motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Moreover, when the trial court acts as the fact finder, it is not required to withdraw a defendant's guilty plea sua sponte and enter a plea of not guilty because no purpose would be served by doing so. See Aldrich v. State, 53 S.W.3d 460, 467 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001), aff'd, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial and enters a guilty plea, the trial court's duty is to consider all the evidence submitted. The trial court may find the defendant guilty as charged, guilty of a lesser-included offense, or not guilty, as the evidence requires. See id. Thus, the trial court had no duty to withdraw appellant's guilty plea and did not abuse its discretion in not doing so. We overrule appellant's point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.