## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0364- 10
JUL I O C ESA R PU EN TE , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON THE ST ATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE FOUR TEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h W OMACK , J OHNS ON , H OL C OM B and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . K EASLE R , J. , f i l ed a concurri ng opi ni on i n w hi ch K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY , J ., jo in e d . H ERVEY , J. f i l ed a concurri ng opi ni on i n w hi ch K ELL ER , P. J. , and K EASLE R , J ., jo in e d . M E YE RS , J. , di d not part i ci pat e. O P I N I O N I n t hi s aggr avat ed s exual
- as s aul t cas e, t he St at e m oved t o amend t he i ndi ct m ent , and t he t r i al cour t gr ant ed the m o ti o n . T he Four t eent h C our t of A ppeal s as s er t ed t hatt he i ndi ct m entw as amended acc or di ngl ybys t r i ki ng out ce rt ain w o rds “on a c opyof t hePuente—2

1 Pu e ntev . S

tate , No. 14-08-01011-CR, 2010 WL 46534 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] J anuar y 7, 2010) (mem. op.) (Slip op. at 6) (not designated f or publication). 2 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . arts. 28.10 &28.11. 3 SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE § 2 2. 02 1( a )( 1) (B )( i) , (a)( 2) (B ), & (e ) (“ A pe rs on c omm its an o ff e ns e

. . . if thepe rs on

. . . inte nti on a lly

or kn ow ing ly

. . . c a us e s th e pe ne tr atio n of the anu s . . . of a c hil d by any means . . . a

nd . . . if . . . the victim is young er tha n 14 year s of ag e[.] * * * An offe nse under this section is a felony

of the fir st degree .”). 4 SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE § 22. 02 1( f) (1 ) (“ Th e min imum ter m of i mpriso nme nt f

or an o ff e ns e under this sec tion is i ncre ased to 25 year s if . . . the victim of the offe nse is young er tha n six year s of ag e at the time the of

fenseis committ ed[.] ”). in d ic tm e n t.” O n p e titio n f o r d is c re tio n a ry re v ie w , th e S ta te n o w c la im s , in ter a lia , t hatt he 1

r ecor d does not bearout t he cour t of appe al s ’ s as s er t i on t hat“a c opyof t he i ndi ct m ent ” w as al t er e d
. I n f

a c t , o n l y t h e wr i t t e n j u d i c i a l c o n f e s s i o n i n t h e d o c u me n t s s u p p o r t i ng t he appel l ant ’ s gui l t ypl ea w as actual l yal t er ed. W e must deci de, t her efor e, w het hert he phy s i cal al t er at i on of a w r i t t en j udi ci al confe s s i on m ay be r egar ded as an amendm entt o t he i ndi ct m ent i n cont empl at i on of A r t i cl es 28. 10 and 28. 11 of t he Texas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e. 2 P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE T he appe l l antw as char ged byi ndi ct m entw i t h t he fe l ony offe ns e of aggr avat ed s exual
as s aul t of a c hi l d for “TH E PE N E T R A T I O N O F TH E A N U S of [J
. C
. ] , a chi l d y oungert han six y e a rs o f

a g e . . . W IT H F IN G E R .” T h is a lle g a ti o n c h a r g e d th e a p p e llan t w ith a firstd eg ree fe lon yo ff

en se, b u t w it h an en h an ce d m inim u m p u n ishm en t of tw en ty -five y ea rs 3
c o n f in e m e n t in th e p e n it e n ti a r y b yv irtu e o f th e a lleg a tio n th a t th e c h ild w h o w a s s e x u a lly
as s aul t ed w as y oungert han s i x y ear s of age
. T he appel l ant and t he St at e ent er ed i nt o pl ea 4Puente—3

5SeeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 28.11 (“ All amendments of a n indictment or information shall be made with the leaveof the c ourt and unde r its direction.”)
. negot i at i ons . Fr om w hatw e ar e abl e t o gat herfr om t he r ecor d, t he appel l ant agr eed t o pl ead gui l t yt o t he fi r s t - degr ee fel ony offe ns e of aggr avat ed sexua l as s aul t of a c hi l d— unenhanc ed, how ever , byt he al l egat i on t hatt he chi l d w as y oungert han s i x y ear s of age— i n excha nge for
a se n ten c e o f

tw e n ty -o n e y e a rs. S u c h a n a g re e d p u n ish m e n t w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a v a ilab le for a con vict i on of agg ravat ed sexual assaul t of a chil d y ou ng er t han si x y ears of ag e, becau se i t i s a l es s ert er m of y ear s t han t he mi ni m um t er m of i m pr i s onm entof t w ent y - fi ve y ear s t hat i s appl i cabl e fora vi ct i m of t hatage. A cco rdi ngl y , t he St at e pr opos ed t o amend t he i ndi ct m ent , appar ent l yi n an at t empt t o have i t r efl ect t he fi r s t - degr ee fel ony offe ns e of s exual
a s s a u l t o f

a c h i l d yo u n g e r t h a n f o u r t e e n ye a r s o f

a g e , w i t h o u t i n c l u d i n g t h e m a n d a t o r ymi n i mu m e n h a n c i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e t h a t t h e c h i l d wa s a l s o y o u n g e r t h a n s i x y e a r s o f a g e . At t he pl ea he ar i ng, t he t r i al cour t acknow l edged t h at t he par t i es had agr eed t o s uch an
a m e n d m e n t o f

th e in d ictm e n t, an d th e trial c o u rt a p p ro v e d th e a m e n d m e n t. 5 H o w e v e r, n e ith e r th e in d ictm e n t it se lf n o r a c o p yo f it w a s a c tu a llya m e n d e d in
a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e a g re e m e n t o f th e p a rties . In ste a d , the p ro se c u to r m a n u a llystru c k c e rta in l anguage fr om t he w r i t t en j udi ci al confe s s i on cont aine d in t he “W ai verof C ons t i t ut i onal R ig h ts, A g re e m e n t to S tip u late , a n d Ju d icia l C o n f e ss io n ” th a t w a s e n ter e d in to e v id e n c e in
s uppor t of t he gui l t ypl ea. A s amended ( and s how i ng t he s t r i ke- out ) , t he j udi ci al confe s s i on acknow l edges t hatt he appe ll an t “d i d [on t he al l eged da t e] unl aw ful l y , i nt ent i onal l yandPuente—4

6 The a ppellant is mistaken that the indictment as thus amende d would have al l eged the second- degreefelony

offe nse of se x ual assault of a child. Had the indictment actually been a mended a s r e fl e c te d in

thea lte ratio n to the judic ia l c on fe ssi on , it w ou ld h ave a lle g e d th at th e a pp e lla nt “ did

. . . unlawfully , intentionally and knowing ly cause THE PENETRATI ON OF THE ANUS of J.C .,

. . . WI TH FI

NGER.” This languag e fails to alleg e a c omplete offe nse, bec ause it alleg es neither that the ac tor lacke d the victi m ’s co nsent nor that the victim was young er tha n sevente en. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE § 22.011(a) & ( c)( 1). Ther efor e, had theindictment been amended a s ref lected in the judicial confe ssion, and the appe llant had objecte d to it under T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 1.14(b) , it would have supported neither a conviction for ag gravated s exual assault of a child nor a convic tion for se x ual assault of a

child. k n o w in g ly c a u se T H E P E N E T R A T IO N O F T H E A N U S o f [ J.C .], a c h ild y o u n g e r th a n six y ea rs of ag e . . . W IT H F IN G E R
. ” U n d ern ea th the ju d ici al co n fe ssion as th u s alt ere d ap p ea rs t he handw r i t t en not at i on: “St at e moves t o amend t he i ndi ct m en t as ref l ect ed above
. ” B ut
now her e i n t he r ecor d do w e fi nd ei t her t hat t he i ndi ct m enti t s el f w as actual l yal t er ed i n any
w ayor t hata copyof t he i ndi ct m entw i t h t he agr eed c hanges not ed on i t w as i nt r oduced
m emori al i zi ng s uch an a m endment
. B as ed upon t he unamended i ndi ct m ent and t he appel l ant ’ s j udi ci al confe s s i on, t he t r i al cour t never t hel es s acc ept ed t he a p p ell an t ’ s pl ea, found hi m gui l t yof aggr avat ed as s aul t of a c hi l d, and set hi s puni s hm entatt he agr eed tw e n ty -o n e -y e a r te rm o f im p riso n m e n t. O n di r ectappea l , t he appe l l antar gued t hat hi s t w ent y - one y earpr i s on s ent ence w as il lega l b ecaus e unaut hor i zed. H e ar gued t hatt he amendm entt o t he j udi ci al confe s s i on
cons t i t ut ed a va l i d amendm entt o t he i ndi ct m entan d that, as t hus amended, namel y , by
s t r i ki ng t he l anguage “a chi l d y ounger t han si x y ear s of age , ” t he i ndi ct m ental l eged onl yt he
s econd- degr ee f

el onyoffe ns e of s exual as s aul tof a c hi l d underSect i on 22. 011( a) ( 2) ( A ) of t he P enal C od e, w hich carr i es a m axim um sent ence o f t w entyy ears . 6Puente—5

On e a dju dg e d guil ty

of a se c on d- de gre e fel ony

of fe ns e of se xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d f a c e s a prison sentenc e for

“any term of not more than 20 year s or l ess than 2 year s.” T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 12.33(a) . The a

ppellant argues that, in order to effe ctuate thetrue intent of the pa rties, the amendment should havestruck only the words “ young er tha

n six year s of ag e.” B y

also striking the words “a child,” he ma intains, the amendment ha d the ef fec t of alleg i n g only

the sec ond-degree felony of sexual assault. We note, howeve r, that, eve n had the words “a c hild” not been struc k, the amendment would still have a l l eged only a sec ond-degreesexual assault. Penetration of the a nus of a “ child” only

amounts to a sexual assault unl ess i t can be s hown that the “child” i s also young er than fourtee n year s of ag e. SeeT EX A S P EN A L C ODE § 2 2. 01 1( a )( 2) (A ) &(c )( 1) (“ A p e rs on c omm its an off ense if theperson . . . intentionally or knowing ly . . . cause s the pene tration of the a nus . . . of a child by any means[.] * * * In this section . . . “Child” means a person young er tha n 17 year s of ag e[.] ”). Thebest way for the parties to ha ve cha ng ed the a lleg ation to allow the appe llant to plead gu il ty in e xc h an g e f

o r a tw e nty- o n e - ye ar

s e nte n c e w o u ld h av e b e e n s im p ly to s trik e th e w o r d

“ s ix” and repla ce it with the word “ fourtee n.” SeeT EX A S P EN A L C ODE § 22.021(a) (2)( B) (intentional or knowingpenetr ation of a child’s anus is a n ag gravated offe nse if “the victim is young er tha n 14 year s of ag e[.] ”). This w ould ha ve raised the sexual a ssault of a child to a f

irst-degreeag gravated sexual assault, but would not have subjec ted t h ea p p ellant to the mandator

y twenty-five- year

minimumterm of imp ri so nme nt. 7 Pu e ntev . S

tate , su pra (Slip op. at 6) (empha sis added). 8 Id . (Slip op. at 6-7). The c ourt of appe als explained: A s e nte nc e tha

t is outsi de themaximumor min imum r ang e of

punis hme nt i s unauthorized by law and the ref ore illeg al. Mi

ze ll v . S tate , 1 1 9 S. W. 3 d

8 0 4 , 8 0 6 ( T e x. T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a g re e d
. In its u n p u b lish e d o p in io n , h o w e v e r, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls
m i sr ead the recor d, as fol l ow s: O n O ct ober 21, 2008, t he St at e s ubm i t t ed t he amendm entt o t he i ndi ct m entby phy s i cal l ys t r i ki ng t hr ough t he w or ds “a c hi l d y oungert han s i x y ear s of age ” on a copy of t he i ndi ctm ent . A ppel l antdi d not obj ectt o t he amendm ent . T he t r i al cour t s ubs equent l yappr oved t he amendm ent . T her efor e, t he i ndi ct m ent w as pr oper l yamended. 7 F i nd i ng t hat t his am end m ent t o the i nd i ct m ent had t he ef fect of redu ci ng t he ch arge against t he appe l l antt o t he s econd- degr ee of fens e of s exual as s aul t , t he cour t of appe al s concl uded t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e w a s i n d e e d u n a u t h o r i z e d , a n d t h e r e f o r e , i l l e g a l
. A c c o r d i n g l y,

8Puente—6

C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e nb an c ); Ex parte Se idel , 3 9 S. W.3 d 2 21 , 2 25 n. 4 ( Te x. Crim. App. 2001) (e n banc)
. A defendant may obtain relief

from an una

uthorized sentence on direc t appea l or by a writ of habea s corpus. Mi ze ll , 119 S.W .3d at 806. Appellant wa s se nte nc e d to c on fi ne me nt f or 21 ye ars . B e c a

us e theame nd e d in dic tme nt o nly alleg ed the of

fenseof sexual a ssault, the maxi mum penalty appellant c ould have be en sentenc ed to is confineme nt for 20 year s. SeeTex. P enal Code Ann. §§ 12.33(a) , 22.011(f) . There fore , appellant’ s sentenceis ill eg al. See Mi ze ll , 119 S.W .3d at 806; Ex parte Se idel , 39 S.W .3d at 225 n.4. When punishment pursuant to a neg otiated plea a gree ment exceeds the sta tu t o ry m aximum, the proper relief is to return the parties to their r espec tive positions before the guilty plea wa s entere d. Ex parte Ric h , 19 4 S.W. 3d 50 8, 51 5 (T e x. Crim. Ap p. 20 06 ); Ex parte Be ck, 922 S.W .2d 181, 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (per curiam). Id . (Slip op. at 7).

9 Id . (Slip op. at 8). 10 T EX . P EN A L C ODE §§ 22.011(a) (2)( A) &( c ) (1). t he cour t of appe al s s ett he convi ct i on as i de, or der ed t he par t i es “r etur ned t o t hei r r es pect i ve p o s i t i o n s b e f

o r e t h e ‘ g u i l t y ’ p l e a was e n t e r e d , ” a n d r e ma n d e d t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t her p ro c e e d in g s . W e g ra n te d th e S ta te ’s p e titio n f o r d is c re tio n a ry re v ie w , in ter a lia , t o ad dress 9 i t s cont ent i on t hatt he amendm entt o t he j udi ci al confe s s i on di d not amount t o an amendm ent t o t he i ndi ct m ent . W e agr ee w i t h t he St at e t hatan amendm entt o t he w r i t t en j udi ci al confe s s i on t hatw as i nt r oduced i n s uppor t of t he gui l t yp lea d o es n o t amount t o an amendm entt o t he i ndi ct m ent . W e t her efor e r ever s e. A N A L Y S IS A p e rs o n c o m m its s e x u a l a s s a u lt if , in tera lia , th e p e rso n “ in ten tio n a lly o r k n o w in g ly

. . . caus es t he penet r at i on of t he anus
. . . of a c hi l d byanym eans , ” a c hi l d bei ng “a pe r s on y o u n g e r t h a n 1 7 y e a r s o f a g e [
. ] ” Th i s i s a s e c o n d
- d e g r e e f e l o n y , p u n i s h a b l e b ya t er m of 10Puente—7

11 T EX . P EN A L C ODE §§ 12.33(a) & 22.011( f). 12 T EX . P EN A L C ODE §§ 22.021(a) (1)( B) (i), (2) (B ). 13 T EX . P EN A L C ODE §§ 12.31 & 22.021( e). 14 T EX . P EN A L C ODE §§ 22.021(e) , (f) (1). t w o t o t w ent y y ear s i n t he peni t ent i ar y . A per s on comm i t s t he offens e of aggr avat ed s exual 11
a s s a u lt if , in ter a lia , t he per s on “i nt ent i onal l yor know i ngl y. . . caus es t he pene t r at i on of t he
a n u s . . . o f

a c h ild b ya n y m e a n s” a n d “ th e v ictim is y o u n g e r th a n 1 4 y e a rs o f a g e .” T h is 12 offe ns e i s a fe l onyof t he fi r s t degr ee, car r y i ng a puni s hm entr ange o f fiv e to ni net y - ni ne y e a rs o r l if

e in th e p e n iten tiary. B u t th e f iv e -y e a r m in im u m ter m o f im p riso n m e n t f

o r th is 13 fi r s t - degr ee f

el ony “i s i ncr eas ed t o 25 y ear s i f .
. . t he vi ct i m of t he off ens e i s y oungert han si x y e a r s of a ge a t t he t i me t he of fe ns e i s c omm i t t e d[
. ] ” The i nd i c t ment i n t hi s cause 14
o rig in a llya lleg e d th a t th e a p p e llan t ca u se d th e p e n e tra tio n o f th e a n u s o f

a c h ild les s th a n six y ear s ol d, t her ebychar gi ng hi m w i t h a fi r s t - degre e fe lon yw i t h a mi ni m um t er m of pu nis hm ent of t w enty -fi ve y ears . B ut a vi ct i m w ho i s y oungert han s i x y ear s of age i s al s o, bydefi ni t i on, y oungert han four t een y ear s of age. Sexual as s aul t of a four t een- y ear - ol d i s , i n es s ence , a l es s er - i ncl uded
o f f e n s e o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a s i x - ye a r - o l d
. T h e r e f

o r e , t h e o r i g i n a l i n d i c t m e n t w a s a l r e a d y,
w i t hout t he nec es s i t yof an a m endment , s uffi ci ent t o aut hor i ze convi ct i on fort he unenha ncedPuente—8

15 Se eAllis on v . S

tate , 618 S.W .2d 763, 764-65 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1981) (indictment a lleg ing burg lary of a ha bitation wi lla

uth o rize c onviction for lesser -included of fenseof burg lary

of a building wi tho ut ne c e ssi ty of an ame ndme nt to theindic tme nt) ; Ha rd iev . S tate , 7 9 S. W. 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 1
- 3 2 ( T e x. App.—W ac o 2 0 02, pet. re f’d) (indictment nee d not be amende d or alter ed at a ll to support conviction for le sser-inc luded offe nse).

16 B e c a us e wewi ll h old t hat th e in dic tme nt w a s in fa c t not ame nd e d, wene e d n ot a dd re ss wh e the r t he c ourt of a pp e a ls s ho uld

ne ve rt he le ss h ave a ff

ir me d the tria l c ourt ’s jud gme nt on so me other ba sis such as estoppel. TheState has argued alter natively th at th e ap p ell ant, havingagree d with the State to am en d th e i n dictment in a way that would support a twenty-one- year sentenc e, should now be estopped from arguing that his sentenc e is illega l beca use no such amendment was succe ssfully

acc omp l ished. Our disposition makes it unnece ssary to resolve this alterna

tive argume nt. fi r s t - degr ee f

el onyof s exual as s aul t of a c hi l d y oungert han four t een y ear s of age
. I f t he 15 ind ict m en t w as n ev er am en d ed in t h is ca se, then there is n o thing il lega l ab o u t the a p p ell an t’ s t w ent y - one- y ears ent ence . T he keyi nqui r y i n t hi s cas e t her efor e devol ves i nt o w het hert he
cour t of appe al s er r ed t o concl ude t hatt he i ndi ct m entw as i n fac t everamended, s uch t hatt he
a p p e llan t w a s c h a rg e d w ith th e se c o n d -d e g re e o f f e n se o f se x u a l as sa u lt rath e r t h a n th e firstdegr ee of

fens e of aggr avat ed sexua l as s aul t of a chi l d undert he age of s i x. I f t he i ndi ct m ent
w a s in f a c t am e n d e d , the ju d g m e n t en ter e d a t th e trial c o u rt lev e l m a yw e ll h a v e b e e n ill e g a l. H ow ever, i f t he indi ct m ent w as not amended, t he sent ence ent er ed by t he t r i al j udge pur s uant to the p lea a g ree m en t w as p erm issi b le, an d w e s h o u ld re v erse the c o u rto f a p p ea ls’ s ju d g m e n t. 16 A rticle s 2 8 .1 0 a n d 2 8 .1 1 o f th e C o d e o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re a llo w f o r th e p o ss ib ili ty of amendi ng an i ndi ct m entand s uppl yt he pr ocedur e t o be fol l ow ed fors ucce s s fulPuente—9

17 T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . arts. 28.10, 28.11. 18 R in e y v . S ta te , 2 8 S
. W
. 3 d 5 6 1 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 19 W ar d v . S tate , 829 S.W .2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), ov e rru le d in pa rt b y Ri ne y v . S tate , 28 S.W .3d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

20 R i ney , 28 S. W
. 3d at566. 21 I d
. at565- 66. 22 I d . at 566. amen d m en t. I n R in e

y v . S ta te , t hi s C our t conduct ed an a nal y s i s of A r t i cl es 28. 10 and 17 2 8 .1 1
. T o th e e x ten t th a t W a rdv . S ta te had re qui r ed phy s i cal i nt er l i neat i on of t he or i gi nal 18 19 in d ic tm e n t f

o u n d in th e c le rk ’s f

ile a s th e e x c lu s iv e m e th o d o f a m e n d m e n t, R i ney over r ul ed W ard
. T h e C o u rt th e n e x p lain e d a n a ltern a tiv e m e th o d f o r a m e n d in g a n in d ictm e n t: 20 It is a c c e p ta b le f

o r th e S tate to p ro f

f e r, f o r th e trial c o u rt’s a p p ro v a l, i ts amended ver s i on of a phot ocopyof t he or i gi nal i ndi ct m ent . I f appr oved, t he a m e n d e d p h o to c o p yo f th e o rig in a l in d ictm e n t n e e d o n lyb e in c o rp o ra ted in to t he r ecor d undert he di r ect i on of t he cour t , pur s uant t o A r t i cl e 28. 11, w i t h t he know l edg e an d aff

i r m at i ve as s entof t he def ens e. T hi s ver s i on of t he in d ictm e n t w o u ld th e n b e c o m e th e “ o f f icia l” in d ictm e n t in th e c a se , an d it w oul d cont i nue t o s t at e, pr es um abl yi n “pl ai n and i nt el l i gi bl e” l anguage , t he natur e and c aus e of t he ac cus at i on. 21 T he C our t i n R i ney th e n n o ted th a t W ar d w oul d “cont i nue[] t o s t and for t he pr opos i t i on t hat ‘[ n ]e ith e r th e m o tio n [ to a m e n d ] itse lf n o r th e trial ju d g e ’s g ra n tin g th e re o f is a n a m e n d m e n t;
r at hert he t w o compri s e t he aut hor i zat i on fort he eve ntua l amendm entof t he cha r gi ng instrum en t pu rsua n t t o A rt icl e 2 8
. 1 0
. ’” 22Puente—10

23 See, e .g. , Me ne

fe ev . S tate , 287 S.W .3d 9, 13 (T ex . Crim. App. 2009) (a “ sworn written statement” a cknowledg ing guilt of the charg ed offense is one form of permissibl e evidence that may be ente red in support of guilty plea in a f

elony case to satisfy the s tatutory require ment, under T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 1.15, that the State introduc e evide nce substantiatingguilt). O ur hol di ng i n R i ney di d not nece s s ar il y rule out t he pos s i bi l i t yt hatt her e coul d be ot herv a l i d m e t h o d s t o a m e n d a n i n d i c t m e n t . W e n e e d n o t d e c i d e t h a t q u e s t i o n t o d a y. R e g a rd les s o f w h e th e r t h e re m a y b e leg iti m a te w a y s to a m e n d a n in d ictm e n t o th e r th a n to
m ake c hanges di r ect l yt o t he or i gi nal i ndi ct m entor t o pl ace an amended dupl i cat e i nt o t he
r ecor d, w e do not bel i eve t hatm anual change s t o a w r i t t en j udi ci al confe s s i on s houl d s uffi ce
u n d e r a n yc irc u m sta n c e s. A ju d icia l co n f e ss io n in a g u ilt yp lea , e v e n w h e n it i s re d u c e d to
w r i t i n g , i s d e c i d e d l y not a char gi ng i ns t r um ent , nor m ayi ts er ve as a r eas onabl e fa cs i m i l e for
one. I t s purpos e i s al t oget herdi ffe r entt han t hatof a cr i m i nal pl eadi ng. A w r i t t en j udi ci al
con fessi on provides evi den t i ary s uppor t fora pl ea of gui l t yt o t he cha r ges al l eged i n t he in d ictm e n t o r to so m e les se r in c lu d e d o f f e n se o f th a t w h ic h is a lleg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. 23 A nychange or i nt er l i neat i on t o t he w r i t t en j udi ci al confe s s i on s er ves t o change t he evi dence
o f f e re d in su p p o rt o f

th e p lea , n o t th e c o n ten t o f th e c h a rg in g in stru m e n t. Itw o u ld compl i cat e mat t er s i nt ol er abl yt o hol d t hata cha nge oral t er at i on to a w ri t t en j udi ci al confe s s i on m ayal s o ( or al t er nat i vel y ) s er ve as an amendm entt o t he pl eadi ng i t s el f. CO NC L US I ON W e hol d t hat t he St at e’ s r eques t t o amend t he i ndi ct m entand t he t r i al cour t ’ s gr ant i ng t hatr eques t di d not s er ve t o amend t he i ndi ct m entw her e al t er at i ons w er e made s ol el yt o t hePuente—11

w ri tt en jud ici al co n fe ssion
. T h ere fo re, t h e a p p ell an t’ s se nt enc e w as a u tho ri ze d , an d the c o u rt
o f a p p ea ls erred in v ac ati n g the tr ial co u rt ’s ju d g m en t. W e re v erse the ju d g m en t of the c o u rt
o f a p p e a ls a n d re in sta te th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt.
D E L I V E R E D : Sept ember 22, 2010 PU BL I SH