From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Oct 7, 2005
No. 06-05-00019-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 7, 2005)

Opinion

No. 06-05-00019-CR

Submitted: September 22, 2005.

Decided: October 7, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.

On Appeal from the 339th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court No. 965212.

Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Thash Orlando Thomas has appealed from his conviction on his plea of no contest without a plea agreement to the offense of intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to a child. He entered the plea after a trial for capital murder in which the jury failed to reach a verdict and the court declared a mistrial. The State reduced the charge to injury to a child causing serious bodily injury, and Thomas entered his plea to that charge. The court sentenced Thomas to life imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes there are no arguable grounds of error that would support reversal in this case, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In his brief, counsel reviews the course of the trial, mistrial, and the plea proceedings and sentencing in some detail, and after so doing, states that he has found no grounds in the record that would support a reversal of the conviction or sentence. Thomas has filed a response pro se, in which he argues that his plea provides insufficient evidence to support his conviction. The State is required to introduce evidence showing the defendant's guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon 2005). Evidence is sufficient under Article 1.15 if it embraces every essential element of the offense charged and establishes the defendant's guilt. See Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). A judicial confession alone is usually sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 1.15, but a judicial confession that omits an element of the offense is insufficient to support a guilty plea. A judicial confession was admitted into evidence. It is signed by Thomas, and in that confession he stipulated that, as set out by the allegations against him, witnesses would testify that Thomas intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Jalen Ardoin, an individual under six years of age, by striking him on the abdomen and chest with a deadly weapon, and that the allegations and the witnesses' testimony would be true. This is sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Thomas also suggests that the confession is insufficient because it was not sworn and made in open court. However, the document states that it was sworn and subscribed to by the defendant, and it was presented and discussed in open court. Thomas further suggests that, because the confession did not set out in detail each element of the offense and specify that he admitted committing each element, it is insufficient. That is incorrect. Thomas' confession states that the allegations against him were true. Standing alone, that is sufficient to support the guilty plea. Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 354 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Thomas also argues that the use of the term "charging instrument" rather than indictment or information is too vague to satisfy the requirements of Article 1.15. He has provided us with no authority to support that position, and we are aware of none. Further, the terms are typically used interchangeably, and we see no error in such use. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the judgment.

The elements of injury to a child are set out in Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1) (Vernon 2003). In relevant part, a person commits the offense if he or she intentionally or knowingly causes serious bodily injury to a child. It is a lesser included offense of capital murder. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(8), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005).

We note that, even had the judicial confession neither been sworn to before the clerk nor signed by the judge, those omissions would not affect either the confession's validity or admissibility. Ybarra v. State, 93 S.W.3d 922, 928 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); see Jones v. State, 857 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.) (holding there is no requirement judicial confessions be made under oath); Terry v. State, 681 S.W.2d 136, 138 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, pet. ref'd) (holding judge's signature not required for judicial confession even where judicial confession and stipulations appeared together in same document).


Summaries of

Thomas v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Oct 7, 2005
No. 06-05-00019-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 7, 2005)
Case details for

Thomas v. State

Case Details

Full title:THASH ORLANDO THOMAS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Oct 7, 2005

Citations

No. 06-05-00019-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 7, 2005)

Citing Cases

Cooksey v. State

See also Jones v. State, No. 12-05-00373-CR, 2006 WL 3086168. at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 1, 2006, no pet.)…