Opinion
No. 05-03-01783-CR
Opinion issued November 15, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-50024-WH. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and FITZGERALD.
OPINION
In this appeal, Marcus Lamont Satra challenges his conviction for aggravated robbery. He contends in two related issues that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea and that the plea was involuntary. We resolve appellant's issues against him and affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a guilty plea before the trial court without the benefit of a plea bargain. He acknowledged his awareness of the punishment range and confirmed for the trial court his desire to persist with a guilty plea. He did not object when the State offered into evidence his judicial confession to the aggravated robbery. Testifying at trial, appellant claimed he shot the complainant "but it was self-defense." He admitted, however, that he and his attorney had discussed the case and he had not acted under the legal theory of self-defense. He admitted that no one had "made" him commit the offense and that the fault for the offense was his. He stated he was sorry and asked the complainant for his forgiveness. In his first issue on appeal, appellant claims the trial court erred when it failed to withdraw his guilty plea sua sponte when he stated at trial that he had acted in self-defense. Contrary to appellant's claim, the trial court was not required to do so. When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial, it is the trial court's duty to consider all the evidence submitted. The trial court may find the defendant guilty of the crime charged, guilty of a lesser included offense, or not guilty, as the evidence requires. 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 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 id. The trial court had no duty to withdraw appellant's guilty plea in this case. We resolve his first issue against him. Appellants next argues that, based on his claim of self-defense, his guilty plea was involuntary. Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires a trial court to give certain admonishments before accepting a plea of guilty, and the admonishments may be given either orally or in writing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a), (d) (Vernon 1989 Supp. 2004-05). Proper admonishment by the trial court creates a prima facie showing that the defendant entered a knowing and voluntary plea. See Martinez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Once a prima facie showing of voluntariness is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that he entered the plea without knowing its consequences and was thereby harmed. See id. Here, the record shows appellant was properly admonished about the consequences of his plea. He has made no showing that his plea was made involuntarily. We therefore resolve appellant's second issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.