Opinion
No. 05-05-01690-CR
Opinion Filed July 10, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F05-50353-HP. Affirm.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, FRANCIS, and LANG-MIERS.
OPINION
Manuel Antonio Lobos waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(iii) (Vernon Supp. 2005). The trial court sentenced appellant to twenty-five years' imprisonment. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court should have sua sponte withdrawn his guilty plea and that his plea was involuntary because he did not understand the nature of the offense or the consequences of the plea.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. 2005); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 771 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). Appellant's signed judicial stipulation that he committed the offense exactly as stated in the indictment was admitted without objection. At the plea hearing, appellant testified he understood the charges in the indictment, the punishment range for the offense, and that the judge could assess punishment anywhere within the punishment range. Appellant testified that no one promised him a particular sentence and he committed the offense exactly as alleged in the indictment. Appellant also testified he turned down a plea offer of an eight-year sentence because he wanted the judge to assess his punishment. The judge passed the case for sentencing and a presentence investigation report. At the sentencing hearing, appellant asked the judge to give him the least amount of time that she could so appellant could be with his wife and three children. Appellant could not remember the actual ages of his children. Appellant testified he had several DWI convictions and had been previously deported, but came back even though he knew he was not to return. Appellant testified he was guilty of the offense and admitted he kissed his six-year-old niece's vagina. Appellant testified he was either drinking or taking drugs at the time he kissed his niece's vagina, but he was only playing with her and she misunderstood the situation. Appellant contends his testimony shows he denied the offense and also did not understand the nature of the charges against him. Therefore, the trial court should have sua sponte withdrawn his guilty plea and entered a plea of not guilty. We disagree. The record shows that appellant understood the charges, but tried to minimize his culpability. The trial court was not required to withdraw appellant's gulty plea. 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, it is the trial court's duty 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. As the fact finder in this case, it was the trial judge's role to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence. See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003); Goodman v. State, 66 S.W.3d 283, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Having reviewed the record, we conclude appellant's plea was voluntary and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not sua sponte withdrawing the plea. See Kirk, 949 S.W.2d at 771. We overrule appellant's points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.