A FFIRMED; Opinion Filed March 31, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 1 4 - 0 0 978 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01333 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01334 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01335 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01336 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01337 - CR NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS , Appellant V. T HE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Distri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 13 - 41905 - U, F12 - 31502 - U, F13 - 31526 - U, F13 - 41904 - U, F14 - 40593 - U, and F14 - 40594 - U 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck Opinion b y Justice Stoddart Nicholas Davell Amos appeals his convictions for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of an elderly person, forgery by check, forgery by check of an elderly person, forgery of a financial instrume nt, and tampering with a government al record. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases and render the- 2
- judgments and the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. We affirm the trial court’s judgme nts. B ACKGROUND Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to the following offenses: fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of an elderly person (cause no. 05

- 14

- 00978

- CR); forgery by check (cause nos. 05

- 14

- 01333

- CR and 05

- 14

- 01334

- CR); forgery by check of an elderly person (cause no. 05

- 14

- 01335

- CR); forgery of financial instrument (cause no. 05

- 14

- 01336

- CR); and tampering with a government al record (cause no. 05

- 14

- 01337

- CR). See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § § 32.21(b), (d), (e

- 1), 32.51(b)(1 ), (c

- 1), 37.10 (a)(2), (c)(2) (A) (West 2011 & Supp. 2014 ). Appellant also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs contained in each indictment. After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty
- five years’ imprisonment on his convictions for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of an elderly person, forgery by check of an elderly person, and tampering with a government al record , and ten years’ imprisonment on the remaini ng three forgery convictions. T RANSFER O RDER In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases and render the judgments because the y were not transferred to its docket. Appellant argues the cases were presented t o the 195th Judicial District Court, and there were no orders transferring the cases from th at court to the 291st Judicial District Court where the y were heard and the judgments rendered. The State responds that the trial court always had jurisdiction ove r these cases; therefore, no transfer orders were necessary.- 3
- A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires “into all offenses liable to indictment,” and hears all the testimony available before voting on whether to indict an accused. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 20.09, 20.19 (West 2005); Ex parte Edone , 740 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). A grand jury is “often characterized as an arm of the court by which it is appointed rather than an autonomous entity.” Dallas Cnty. Dist. A ttorney v. Doe , 969 S.W.2d 537, 542 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 1998, no pet.). After the conclusion of testimony, a grand jury votes “as to the presentment of an indictment.” T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 20.19. Following presentment, an indictment is filed in a court with competent jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to hear the case. See Hultin v. State , 171 Tex. Crim. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961). In counties having two or more district courts, the judges of the courts may adopt rules governing the filing, numbering, and assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the courts’ work they consider necessary or desirable to conduct the business of the courts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 24.304 (West 2004); see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 74.093 (West 2013) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases). Thus, a specific district court may impanel a grand jury, but it does not necessarily follow that all cases re turned by the grand jury are assigned to the impaneling court. See Bourque v. State , 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d). While the record shows the 195th Judicial District Court presided over the grand jury that returned the six indic tment s , the cases were thereafter filed in the 2 91st Judicial District Court. We take judicial notice that both of these courts are located in Dallas County. Nothing in the record indicates th e cases were ever filed in or appeared on the trial docket of the 195th Judicial- 4
- District Court. Because the 2 91st Judicial District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s
case s and render the judgment s , we overrule appellant’s first issue. I NSUFFICIENT E VIDENCE In his second issue, appellant contends the eviden ce is insufficient to support his convictions for forgery by check (cause nos. 05

- 14

- 01333

- CR and 05

- 14

- 01334

- CR) , forgery of a financial instrument (cause no. 05

- 14

- 01336

- CR), and tampering with a government al record (cause no. 05

- 14

- 01337

- CR). Appellant argues there is no evidence admitted in support of his guilty pleas, in violation of article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, because the judicial confessions were not marked as exhibit s in the cases. The State responds the evidence is suffi cient to support the convictions. Article 1.15 provides that w hen a defendant waives his right to a jury trial and pleads guil t y , the State need only introduce sufficient evidence to support the plea and establish the defendant ’ s guilt. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 1.15 (West 2005 ); Wright v. State, 930 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1996, no pet.). The supporting evidence need not prove the defendant ’ s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. M cGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006 , no pet.); see Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 791

– 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (op. on reh ’g ). The evidence sufficiently supports a plea of guilty if it embraces every element of the offense charged. Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 996). The records in these cases show the trial court admitted appellant’s “signed judicial confession and stipulation of evidence in each of the six cases” without objection. Appellant’s signed pleas of true to the enhancement paragraphs in each of the s ix cases was also admitted without objection. The judicial confessions are included in the appellate record. A judicial confession acknowledging guilt of the indictment’s allegations is sufficient to meet the- 5
- requirements of Article 1.15. See Dinnery v. State , 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979. Moreover, appellant testified under oath that he committed the offenses as alleged in the indictments. Appellant’s testimony embraced every essential element of the offense s charged and was su fficient evidence to establish h is guilt. As such, it was sufficient to support
a ppellant ’ s plea s and the finding s of guilt under article 1.15. S ee S tone , 919 S.W.2d at 427
. We overrule appellant’s second issue. In each case, we affirm the trial court’ s judgment.

/ Craig Stoddart/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE Do Not Publish T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 140978F.U05- 6
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 00978

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellee Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 41905

- U ). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, J ustices Lang and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgmen t is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered this 31st day of March , 2015.- 7
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 01333

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 291st Judi cial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 31502

- U ). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, J ustices Lang and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered th is 31st day of March , 2015.- 8
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 01334

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County , Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 31526

- U ). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, J ustices Lang and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered this 31st day of March , 2015.- 9
- 

## Co **urt of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** 
JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 01335

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F13

- 41904

- U ). Opi nion delivered by Justice Stoddart, J ustices Lang and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered this 31st day of March , 2015.- 10
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Tex as at Dallas** 
JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 01336

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F14

- 40593

- U ). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, J ustices Lang and Schenck participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered this 31st day of March , 2015.- 11
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVELL AMOS , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 01337

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F14

- 40594

- U ). Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart, J ustices Lang and Schenck participa ting.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered this March 31st of March , 2015.