T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 1.15. 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 1530- 08
R O BE R T L EE M EN EF EE , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE TW ELF TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

S M I TH CO UNTY C OCHR AN , J ., f

i le d a c onc ur r ing o

pini on. OP I NI ON I j oi n t he opi ni on of t he C our t as w el l as J udge W om ack’ s concur r i ng opi ni on. I agr ee
w it h the m ajorit ythat the e x p li cit term s o f A rt icl e 1
. 1 5 w ere n o t m et i n this case
. T h e e n tr y 1
o f a fo rm al p lea do es no t su ff ice as ind ep en d en t ev iden ti ary su p p o rt fo r that g u il ty p le a . I al s o agr ee w i t h J udge W om ack t hat t he r equi r ement of s ubm i t t i ng or s t i pul at i ng t o evi dence
s uppor t i ng a gui l t ypl ea unde r A r t i cl e 1. 15 no l on g er h as m uch purpos e ori m por t ance .Menef ee Conc urringOpinion Page2

See Salazar v. State, 86 S.W .3d 640, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“The c or pus de lic ti 2 rule guarde d ag ainst the shockingspecta cle a nd deleterious effe ct upon the criminal just ice sy stem when a

murder vic tim suddenly

rea ppear ed, hale and hea

rty , afte r his self-c onfesse d murd er er h adb ee ntri edan d

ex ec ut ed
. ”) (c i t i n g R OL L I N M. P ER KI N S & R ONAL D N. B O Y CE , C RI M I N A L LAW 14 2 ( 3d

e d. 19 82 )) ; se eals o W

ar szo we r v . U

nite d S tates, 312 U.S. 342, 347 (1941) ( “The rule re quiringcorr oboration of c onfessions protec ts the administration of the c ri min a l la

w a g a ins t e rror s in

c onvic tio ns ba se d u

po n untr ue c on fe ssi on s a lon e .” ); East v. State, 175 S.W .2d 603, 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1942) (“Thewisdom of this rule lies in the fac t that no man s ho uld

be c onvic te d o f a

c ri me , th e c omm iss ion

of wh ic h h e c on fe sse s, un le ss t he State shows, by other testimony , that the conf essed c rime wa s in fact c ommitt ed by someone. The contra ry would authorize a re turn of conditions that exist ed in the day s of the inquisition.”); Commonwealth v. Turza, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (Pa. 1940) ( The purposeof the c or pus de lic tiru le is to gua rd ag ainst “the ha sty

and unguarde d char acte r which is ofte n attache d to confe ssions and admissions and the conseque nt dang er of a convic tion where no crime ha s in fact be en committed.”). See Salazar , 86 S.W .3d at 644. 3 SeeC o n curr i n g Op
. at1 -2 (W o m ac k , J
. , co n curr i n g) ( qu o t i n g W AYN E R. LA F AVE ET 4 AL ., C RI M I N A L P ROCE D U RE § 21.4(f) (3d ed. 2000) ). H i s t or i cal l y , t he r equi r ement t hata convi ct i on, i ncl udi ng a gui l t y pl ea, m us t be suppor t ed by
e v i d e n c e r e l a t e s b a c k t o t h e c o mm o n l a w c o rp u s d e licti ru le. T h e p u rp o se o f th a t ru le is to 2
ens ur e t hat a per s on i s not convi ct ed bas ed s ol el yupon hi s ow n ext r aj udi ci al fal s e conf es s i on to a c rim e th a t n e v e r o c c u rre d
. B u t, a s Ju d g e W o m a c k a p tlyn o tes , the re a re m a n yw a y s to 3 pr ot ectt hati nt er es t i n t he cont extof a gui l t ypl ea i n open cour t . A s he concl udes , i t i s t he 4 L e g isla tu re ’s p re ro g a tiv e to e sta b lish th e p a rticu lar m e a n s to p ro tec t th a t in ter e st, b u t A rticle 1. 15 pr ovi des ver ypoor pr ot ect i on atbes t . A nd i t can make t he l aw a l aughi ngs t ock. T hi s cas e i s a good exa m pl e of w hyt he “i ndepe n dentevi dence ” r equi r ement of A r t i cl e 1. 15 m ays er ve l i t t l e purpos e. H er e, no one i s s ugges t i ng t hat appel l anti s i nnocent of t he cr i m e t o w hi ch he pl ed gui l t y , nor i s any one sugges t i ng t hat i ndepende nt evi dence ofMenef ee Conc urringOpinion Page3

M aj o ri ty Op
. at8 (c i t i n g Be nd

e r v . S tate , 758 S.W .2d 278, 280-81 (Te x . Crim. App. 5 19 88 ); Ex pa rteMa rti n , 747 S.W .2d 789, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2(b) (“ Any [non-constitut ional] error, de fec t, irregularity , or variance 6 that does not aff

ect substantial rights must be disreg arde d.”). h is gu il t do es n o t exist. T h e p rob lem h ere is a sim p le t yp o g ra p h ic a l e rr o r. T h e w o rd “pos s es s ed” w as l eftout of t he s t i pul at i on of evi dence
. N o one not i ced i t . N o one ca r ed at th e tim e o f

th e p le a . T h e re is n o s u c h c ri m e a s “ d id th e n a n d th e re w ith in te n t to d e liv e r, a cont r ol l ed s ubs t ance , namel y , coca i ne, i n an amount of one ( 1) gr am or more but l es s t han fou r ( 4) gram s, i ncludi ng adu l t erant s and d i l utant s. ” T here i s no such sent ence in t he E ng l i sh l anguage . T he pr obl em i s obvi ous l yone of f or m , not s ubs t ance . It is, a s the m aj ori t ycorr ect l yno t es, t ri al err or. Iti s hard t o im agine ho w th is 5 t ypogr aphi cal om i s s i on coul d “af fec t appel l ant’s su b s t ant i al r i ght s ” underour cur r ent har m l es s er r or r ul e, but beca us e t he par t i es have n o t y ethad an oppor t uni t yt o pr es ent 6 argum ents on t hat i ssue, and t he co urt of ap peals has no t add res sed i t , I agr ee t hat t his case sh o u ld b e re tu rn e d to th a t co u rt. Fi l ed: J ul y1, 2009 P ub l i sh