Opinion
No. 05-08-00131-CR
Opinion Filed March 3, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F07-01199-XI.
Before Justices BRIDGES, O'NEILL, and FITZGERALD. Opinion By Justice O'NEILL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Luis Straughter waived a jury and pleaded guilty to injury to a child younger than fourteen years and with serious bodily injury. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at thirty years' imprisonment. Appellant now complains the trial court erred by failing to sua sponte withdraw the guilty plea after appellant contested his guilt. 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 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant contends that because he only spanked his son in a manner that was justified pursuant to the parent-child relationship, the trial court should have sua sponte withdrawn his guilty plea. Appellant argues the evidence shows he had ongoing disciplinary issues with his son, and most of his son's injuries occurred while playing sports or were inflicted by a girl whom his son tried to assault. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the evidence shows appellant entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Appellant did not complain about his guilty plea either in the trial court or in his motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Moreover, when the trial judge acts as the fact finder in a case, even if evidence is presented that raises an issue as to the defendant's guilt, the judge 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 Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 350 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); see also Aldrich v. State, 53 S.W.3d 460, 467 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001), aff'd, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)). Rather, the trial judge's duty is to consider all of the evidence submitted. The trial judge may find the defendant guilty as charged, guilty of a lesser-included offense, or not guilty, as the evidence requires. See Aldrich, 53 S.W.3d at 467. Thus, the trial judge had no duty to sua sponte withdraw appellant's guilty plea and did not err in failing to do so. We affirm the trial court's judgment.