T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 32. 21 (Ve rnon 200 3). 1 NO. 07-07 -022 2-CR

IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PANEL C JU NE 24, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ LINDSEY FORD JR ., APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

_____ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 6- 413,878 ; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Lind sey

Ford Jr. , appeals the entr y of judg ment f ind ing him gui lty of the offense of forg er

y , enhanc ed bytw o pr ior felony co nv icti ons. Al thoug h the under ly ing 1 ind ictment cont ain ed two s eparate count s, the j udg ment, as drafted, c onst it utes onl y oneIn a si ng le proceed ing , Ap pella n t was als o c onv icted o f: (1) C ause No. 2006- 2 4 1 3 , 8 8 9 , burg la r

y o f a h a b i t a t i o n , e n h a n c e d ; ( 2 ) C a u s e N o . 2 0 0 6
- 4 1 3 , 8 9 0 , b u rg l a r y o f a habi tati on, e n hance d; ( 3) C ause No. 2006- 414,895 , burg lar y of a habi tati on, e nhanc ed; and, (4 ) Cau se No. 2006- 414,532 , burg lar y of a habi tati on, e nhanc ed. Appel lan t w as sent ence d to l ife on each of the burglary charges. Again, although th e indictm entin Cause No. 2006- 413,890 co ntai ned mul ti ple co unts , t he j udg ment , a s d ra ft e d , c o n s t i t utes onl y one conv icti on and one s entenc e. T h e in d ic t m e n ta ls o a ll e ge s t h a t , p ri o r t o t h e co m m is s io n o f t h e a ll e ge d fo rg e ry, 3 Appel lan t had been conv icted for the feloni es of burg lar y and credi t c ard abus e. The ind ictment all eg ed App ell ant h ad been conv icted for the felony

of burg lar

y on S eptember 9, 19 92 i n the 237 D is tr ict C our t of Lubboc k C ounty , Tex as, i n C ause No. 92- 414,991 , th and, on Augu st 31, 1990, he w as conv icted o f the felony of credi t c ard abus e i n the 137 th Di str ict C our

t of Lubboc k C ounty , Tex as, i n C ause No. 89- 409,763

. 2 conv icti on and one s entenc e. Puni shmentw as ass ess ed at tw enty y ears c onfinement to ru n c oncur re nt w it h four separate sente nces ari si ng f ro m four addit ion al in dictments

. By 2 one i ss ue, A ppel lan t c ontends t he ev ide nce present ed by the Stat e dur ing hi s p lea proceed ing w as factual ly i nsuffici ent t o prov e the offenses ch arg ed. W e aff ir m.

Back ground
On O cto ber

2, 2006, a Lubbo ck

C ounty Grand Jur

y retur ned an ind ictment charg ing Appel lan t w it h tw o c ounts of forg er y of a financ ial i nst ru ment enh anced by tw o pr ior felony
conv icti ons. C ount I al leg es Appel lan t pas sed a forg ed w ri ti ng to Lucy R og ers. C ount II 3 alleges App ellantpasse d a forged w riting to Vikki Shif lett. Ea ch cou nt a ll e ge d t h at said
w ri ti ng w as a c heck

“ of the te nor f o llo wing: ( see attac hed) .” Attac hed t o the i ndi ctment
w as a phot ocopy

of tw o chec ks , Che ck No. 2249 in the amount o f $24.74, and C heck N o. 22 5 3 i n t h e a mo u n t o f $ 2 3

. 2 4 , e a c h d ra w n o n t h e a c c o u n t o f Ti mo t h y K e y . N e i t h er theSee f n. 3. Appe llant’s four oth er convictions are the subje ct of app eals f iled in this 4 Cou rtin C ause Nos . 07- 07- 0223- CR , 07- 07- 0224- CR , 07- 07- 0225- CR , and 07- 07- 0226- CR

. Opi nio ns in thes e appea ls are al so bei ng i ss ued s imul taneous ly

. The W ri tten Admoni shment s w ere si g ned by Appel lan t, his attor ney , and the tr ial 5 jud g e. The admoni shment s s et forth t he range o f p u n is hment for

the offense charg ed; a f f ir m e d A p p e ll a n t ’s m e n t a l c o m p e t e n c y; a d m it t e d h is plea was g iv en f re e ly a n d vo lu n t a ri ly; recogniz ed n o on e ma de a ny prom ises to him to indu c e h is plea; adm itted his und erstan ding regarding his const itution al rig hts to trial by jury , rig ht to conf ront wi tne sses, and t he r ig ht to not be compel led to tes ti fy ag ain st hims elf at tr ial ; ack now led g ed that if he ple ads g uil ty

he w aiv es the aforementi oned ri g hts ; ackno w led g ed his understa ndi ng as to re sti tuti on; a nd th e c ontent s o f the W ri tten Admoni shment s. 3 lan g uag e i n the i ndi ctment , nor the photoc opy

o f the chec ks , i ndi cat es w hic h c heck w as pass ed to R og ers a nd w hic h c heck w as pass ed to Shi flett.
On M ay 10, 2007, Appel lan t app eared i n open cour t, w it h c ounse l, and ack now led g ed to the cour t t hat it w as his “i ntent to enter an open ple a to each of t he c ases that are pendi ng ag ain st [hi m] here today .” Appel lan t furt her ac know led g ed th ere w as no 4 ple a ag re ement w it h the Sta te, his plea wa s f reely and v olu ntar il y

g iv en and he w as w aiv ing ce rt ain r ig hts i ncl udi ng hi s r ig ht t o a t ri al by j ur y , as w ell as his r ig ht t o c onfront and cross-examine wi t n e s ses in ope n cou rt. The record f urthe r ref lects App ellantf iled his W ritten Adm onish m ents, w herein he i ndi cat ed he w as “d esi ri ng to enter a ple a of

g uil ty .” 5 W it hout formall y eli ci ti ng a ple a of g uil ty in acc ordance w it h ar ti cl e 27. 13 of the Tex as Cod e of Cri min al Proced ure, th e trial court revi ewed the ind ictme nt’s allegation s as follows:
THE C OU RT: F irs t of al l, i n C ause No. 2006- 413,878 , do y ou unde rs tand t h a tyo u ’r e in d ic t e d fo r t h e o f fe n s e o f fo rg e ry? T HE DEFENDANT: Y es.4

THE C OU RT: And als o the re i t i s a ll eg ed i n the i ndi ctmentthaty ou’ v e been prev iou sl y

co nv icted o f tw o pr ior

feloni es. And are y ou g oin g to be pl eadi ng true to those enh ance me nt pa ragraphs? T HE DEFENDANT: Y es. THE C OU RT: F irst of all i t al leg es that on or aboutSept ember

the 6 of

th 2006 t hat y ou i ntent ion all y w it h i ntentto defraud and har m anothe r pass to Lucy R og ers a forg ed w ri ti ng kn ow ing t h a t such w ri ti ng to be forg ed, a nd pur por ted t o be the a ct of another , t hat being a Ti mothy Key , w ho di d not author iz e the ac t, and s aid w ri ti ng w as attac hed a c h e ck made pa y abl e to Uni ted S uper mark et i n the amount of $72.24, and an other one in the a mount of $23.24; that are bot h dat ed Sep tember 6 , 200 6. Are y ou pl eadi ng g uil ty th to t he c harg e of forg er

y bec ause y ou are g uil ty and for no other

reason ? T HE DEFENDANT Yes.
The tr ial co urt t hen rev iew ed th e enhan cement s c ontai ned i n t h e i ndi ctmentand ex pla ine d their

ef fect on the rang e of puni shment

. Appel lan t ans w ered affirmat iv ely to the court’s question regarding w het h er he un dersto od th e ef fect of the en han cem ent s, w hereupon t he c our

t ann ounce d tha t it w oul d “a cc ept y our ple a of tru e to that charg e as w ell , and al so y our

pl ea of g uil ty .” There w ere no obj ect ion s to the p ro cedure by w hic h the cour t “ acc epted” Appel lan t’ s p lea

. The tr ial co urt t hen repeated thatprocedu re fo r th ree of the remaini ng four ind ictments , hea rd the Stat e’s ev ide nce, and re v iew ed App ell ant’ s p re -s entenc e repor t. At t he c oncl usi on of the proceed ing , t he tr ial co urt a ss ess ed App ell ant’ s p uni shmentat tw enty y ears c onfinement and ent ered j udg ment.Jacks on v . Vi rgini a, 443 U.S. 307 , 318 -19, 99 S.Ct. 27 81, 61 L.E d.2 d 56 0 (197 9); 6 Ki ng v . St ate, 29 S. W .3d 556 , 562 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 0). Johns on v

. St ate, 23 S. W .3d 1, 11 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 200 0). 7 5 Discus sion Appel lan t c ontends the ev ide nce is “ factual ly i nsuffici ent” to suppo rt his co nv icti on but c it es no aut hor ity

to ex pla in or

su ppor t hi s e nti tl ement t o a fact ual su ff ic ien cy rev iew
w here , as here , he ha s pled guilty to a trial court an d w aived his ri ght to a jury trial.
W h e re a d e f e n d a n tk n o win gly , intelligently, and v olun tarily plead s g uilty or no lo contender

e to a felon y , the app ellate stand ards of rev iew for legal and factu al suf f iciency 6 7 do notappl y . Ex p a rt e Mar tin , 747 S. W .2d 7 89, 7 91 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1988) ; Ex par te W il li am s, 703 S.W .2d 674, 678 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) ; O’ Br ien v. Sta te, 154 S. W .3d 9 08, 910 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 2005, no pet.) ; Kel ler v. Sta te, 125 S. W .3d 6 00, 6 04- 05 (T e x.A p p .–H oust on [1 D is t.] 2003, pet. di sm’ d) , cer t. denied, 5 4 4 U

. S

. 9 0 6 , 1 2 5 S

. Ct

. st 160 3, 161 L.Ed.2 d 280 (200 5). Altho ugh the Sta te m ust introd uce e v iden ce into the reco rd est abl is hin g the d efendant’ s g uil t, see T ex. Cod e Crim. Proc. An n. art. 1 .15 (Vernon 200 5), t h e re i s n o re q u i re me n tt h a tt h e s u p p o rt i n g e v i d e n c e p ro v e t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s g u i l tb ey ond a reason abl e doubt

. McGil l v. Sta te, 200 S. W .3d 3 25, 3 30 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 2006, no pet.) . Rat her , the suppor ti ng ev ide nce must si mply embrace each essent ial element o f the offense charg ed. Stone v. State, 919 S.W .2d 4 24, 4 27 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) ; Mc Gi ll , 2006

S.W .3d at 330 . Th e issue is wh e t h e r s uf f icient evidence supp orts the judgmen t of g uilt under ar ti cl e 1.1 5. Id.;Kel

ler , 125 S.W .3d a t 605

. Mo re ov er , w here the defendant’ s p lea i s s uppor ted b y a vol u n tar

y j udi ci al confession , he waiv es his rig ht to comp lain of the factu al suf

f iciency of

the evi d e nce suppo rt ing hi s c onv icti on. Mc Gi ll , 200 S. W .3d at 332; Kel ler , 125 S.W .3d a t 605

. A j udi ci al confession stand ing alone is suf f icient to sustain a conviction on a guilty plea un der article 1.15; Di nner y v . St ate, 592 S.W .2d 343, 353 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) ( op. o n reh’ g ); Keller, 125 S. W .2d a t 605 ; Lor d v . St ate, 63 S. W .3d 8 7, 92 ( T e x.A p p .–Cor pus Chr is ti 2001, no pet.) ; Stewar

t v . St ate, 12 S. W .3d 146 , 148 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [1 Dist.] 200 0, no pet. ); st Sm it h v . St ate, 857 S. W .2d 7 1, 75 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 1993, pet. re f’d) , and Ap pel lan t’ s p lea
cons ti tutes a v olu n ta ry j udi ci al confess ion of g uil t. See D inn er y, 592 S. W .2d a t 352 -5 3; Ha r p v. State , 1 4 8 Tex .C ri m. 354, 187 S.W .2d 5 70, 5 71 ( 1945) ( op. o n reh’ g ); Lor d, 63 S.W .3d a t 92; Stewar

t, 12 S. W .3d a t 148

. W e not e tha t, w hen s ummari z ing the offense charg ed by the ind ict m ent p ri or

to tak ing Appel lan t’ s p lea , t he tri al cour t inadv ertentl y

referred to one forg ed check ch arg ed in the indictm entin the am oun t of $24 .74 as a check in th e am oun to f $ 7 2.2 4. T his ina dv ertent er ro r does not c ast d o u b t on w hether the ple a w as made v olu ntar il y and int ell ig entl y , or

affectthe adeq uacy

of the p lea itse lf to suppo rtthe conv icti on. See G ibs on v. State, 747 S. W .2d 6 8, 69 -7 0 ( Tex .App. –Co rp u s C h r i s t i 1988, no pet .) ( ind ictment all eg ed7

offense occ ur re d on Aug ust15, 1986, and defendant pl ed g uil ty to same o ffense occ ur ri ng on th e w ro ng date , Au g ust15, 1987)

. Altho ugh the re w as an obvious m istake in the a mo unt , the re is no indicat ion th at it in any w ay misled or harme d App ellant , and his int e n t io n to ple ad guiltyto the forgery o ffenses ca n be re asona bly as cer tai ned from the words used in the p lea

. Id. T his is par ti cul ar ly so w here th e s p e cif icamount of moneyso ug ht t o be obtai ned by the forg ed ins tr ument w a s n o t a n el ement of the offense; see Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 32.21( d) (V er non 200 3) , and the differenc e betw een t he ac tu a l a m ount of the forg ed i nst ru ment ($ 24.74) and the amount mis tak enl y re present ed by the tr ial cour t at sent enci ng ( $72.24)
w as i n s ignif icant ($4 7.5 0). Moreover, Appellan t did no t lodge any objectio n to th is ina dv ertent mis tak e by

the tr ial j udg e dur ing the ple a proceed ing s, mov e to w it hdraw the plea , or ot he r

w i s e rai s e th e i s s ue he re. Ac c ordi ng l y , an y g rou nd s for ob j ecti on were w aiv ed. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 33. 1( a) ; A ld r ic h v . Sta te, 53 S. W .3d 4 60, 4 69, 4 70 (Tex .App. –Da ll as 2001) , aff’ d, 104 S.W .3d 8 90 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2003) ; Mc Gowin v. Sta te, 912 S. W .2d 8 37, 8 42 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 1995, no pet .)

. Havi ng conside red the record, w e conclu de th ere w as suf f icient evidence to supp ort the j udg ment und er

ar ti cl e 1.1 5 of the Cod e of Cri minal Procedu re . Appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue is ov er ru led

.8 Conclusion
Acc ordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Jus ti ce Do not p ubl is h.