### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 87 -C R

______________________________ J USTI N HEATH GAF FORD, A ppellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 8th J udicial District Court

Hopkins County , Texas Trial Court No. 0517881

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C art e r

an d C o r n e l i u s , * JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Cornelius

________________________ *Wil liam J . Cornelius, Chief J ustice, Retired, Sitting by Assignme nt2 O P IN I O N J ustin Heath Ga ffor d was indicted for murder . He wa ived a jury trial and e ntere d a plea

of g uilty befor e the tria l court. After a bench trial on the plea, the trial court f ound Gaf ford guilty

as
c ha rg e d a nd se nte nc e d h im t o li fe imp ri so nme nt. On ap p ea l , Ga ff

o rdra i s e s t h re e i s s u es : T h e S t at e f ai l edt o s u ff

i ci en t l y re b u tGa ff

o rd 's evidenc e ra i s i n g t he issue of se lf-def ense; the tria l court er

red by failingto sua sponte withdraw Ga ff or d' s guil ty

ple a wh e n th e e vid e nc e ra ise d th e iss ue of se lf -d e fe ns e ; and the tr ia l cou rt e rr e d in
re fu sin g Ga ff

or d' s re qu e st to ope n an d clo se a t the fi na l ar g ume nt o n p un ish me nt. We o ve rr ule a ll the se c on te nti on s a

nd a ff ir m th e jud g me nt. Th e e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g Ga ff or d' s guil ty

ple a c on sis te d o f his jud ic ia l c on fe ssi on and his persona l testimony , as we ll as t h e t es t i mony of seve ral other

witnesses. The e vidence reve aled,
amon g o t h er things, that Gaf ford a nd his brother, F rankie Gaf ford, we re r egular user s of methamphetamine. O n the day of the murde r, Ga ffor d and his brot h er u sed methamphe tamine tog e the r. Ga ff

or d b e g an to fe e l ba d s o h e lay do wn to re st. He late r a

wo ke to f ind his br oth e r o n h is (Ga ffor d' s) bac k havinganal inter course with him. A strugg le ensue d. Eventually , Gaf ford g rabbe d a pair of scissors and sta

bbed F rankie repe atedly

in the neck, chest, and abdome n, causinghis death. Th e State of

fe re d e vid e nc e tha

t F ra nk ie wa s th e do min ant p e rs on in th e re latio ns hip be tw e e n h im and Ga ffor d, and that Ga ffor d suffe red from para noia and had violent tendenc ies, espec ially when3

he wa s using methamphetamine. Gaf ford' s wife testified that she neve r knewFr ankie to exhibit any vio le nt t e nd e nc ie s, but th a t e ve n s he ha d b e e n s ta bb e d b y Ga ff or d u sin g tin

sn ips , a sc iss or s- lik e too l. We first consider the contention that the State fa iled to sufficiently rebut Ga ffor d' s claim of self-de fense . Gaf

ford e ntere d a plea

admitting he w as guilty of t h e o ff

en s e as c harg ed in the indictment. I n addition, he testified in per son at the t rial on his g uilty plea and acknow ledg ed that he murde red his brothe r, at one point answe ring the questi on, "Well, he wasn' t raping y ou any more when you g ot those scissors, rig ht? " w ith the statement, " No, S ir. Ishouldn't have g ot the scissors afte r him." Gaf ford sig ned a judicial confe ssion, whic h will alone sustain a convic tion on a g uilty plea. D i n n e r yv . S tate , 5 92 S.W. 2d

34 3, 35 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ). Al tho ug h G a ff or d g ave so me testimony that raised the issue of self-defe nse, he fully admitted his g uilt of t he charg ed off ense, he
re pe a te dly

c on tr a dic te d h is ow n te sti mony ra isi ngse lf

-d e fe ns e , a

nd the re ma ini nge vid e nc e of his g uilt is more than suf

ficient to support the trial c ourt' s finding that the State 's ev i d en ce rebutted Gaf ford' s claim of self- defe nse. Gaf ford a lso contends the trial c ourt err ed in fa iling to sua sponte withdra w his g uilty

plea when e vidence raised the issue of self- defe nse. We reje ct this contention. The trial c o u rt is not require d to sua sponte withdraw a def endant' s gu i lty

plea a nd enter a plea of not g uilty

when the defe ndant enter s a guilty

plea be fore the trial court a fter w aiving a jury , even if evidenc e is prese nted that e ith e r m ake s th e de fe nd ant' s inno c e nc e e vid e nt or re a so na bly and fa ir ly ra ise s an iss ue a s to his4

g uilt. Me nd

e z v . S tate , 138 S.W. 3d 33 4, 33 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ); Al dr ic h v . S tate , 104 S.W .3d 89 0, 89 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ); se e als o M oo n v . S tate , 572 S.W .2d 681, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Be cause this was a trial on a plea of g uilty befor e the court without a jury , the t rial court, as t h e f i n d er o f f ac t , h adt h e o p t i o nt o fi n d Ga ff o rdn o tgu i l ty

i f t h e e v i d en ce s u

p p o rt eds u ch a f

i n d i n g. The trial c ourt also had the option to find Ga ffor d g uilty of a le sser off

ense tha n murder if

he found the fa cts justified such a f inding. So, in any

event, Ga ffor d was not har med. L ast, Gaf ford a sserts that the trial c ourt should have g rante d his r equest to open a nd close at the final a rgument on punishment. Gaf ford argues that he had a rig ht to ope n and close beca use he had the bur den to prove sudden passion. The trial c ourt has broa d discretion to control the or der of the proce eding s in a trial, including final ar g ument, espec ially when the tr ial is nonjury

. Garcia v. Sta te , 537 S.W .2d 930, 936 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). How ever , Article 36.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provi d es t h at the State' s counsel shall have the rig ht to make the conc luding addre ss to the jury . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 36.07 (Ve rnon 2007). This rule applies eve n when the de fenda

nt has the burde n of proof on an affirmative defense , beca use t he State still has the burden to ove rcome the def endant' s evidenc e and to pr ove all the elements of the offe nse cha rg ed, including the def

endant' s intent and culpability

. Ma rti ne z v . S tate , 5 01 S.W. 2d

13 0, 13 2 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1973).5

Moreove r, we can perc eive no harm to Gaf ford a s a re sult of this procedura l ruling. The trial court here hear d all the evidenc e, which fully explored the State' s case and Gaf ford' s defe nses, and was fully informed as t o t h e law a nd the fa cts. I t is unli kely that the cour

t would have be en influence d in any

way by whi ch p ar t y o pened a

nd closed the a

rgument on punishment, as a jury mig ht h ave be e n. We f

ind no a bu se of dis c re tio n o n th e pa

rt of the tr ia l c ourt
. F or the re a so ns state d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

Wil liam J . Cornelius J ustice* *Chief J ustice, Retired, Sitting by Assignme nt Date Submitted: April 7, 2008 Date D ecide d: Aug ust 4, 2008 Publis h