T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 30. 02 (Ve rnon 200 3). 1 NO. 07-07 -022 3-CR NO. 07-0 7-02 25-CR NO. 07-07 -022 6-CR IN THE CO URT 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 S. 2 006- 413,889 ; 200 6- 413- 895; 2006- 414,532 ; 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, Lin dsey Ford Jr ., appeal s the entr y of three j udg ments findi ng hi m g uil ty of the offense of burg lar y of a habi tati on, eac h offense enhanc ed by two p ri or felony 1In a si ng le p ro ce e din g , Ap pel lan t was als o c onv icted o f: (1)C ause No. 2006- 2 413,878 , forg er

y , enh anced , and ( 2) C a u se N o. 20 06- 413,890 , burg lar y of a habi tati on, enhanc ed. Appel lan t w as sent enced to twenty y ears on the forg er y ch arg e and li fe on the burg lar y ch arg e. Al thoug h the i ndi ctment s i n C ause Nos . 200 6- 413,878 and 2006- 413,890 each cont ain ed multi ple counts , the judg ments, as drafted, const it ute o nly one conv icti on and one se ntenc e i n eac h c ase. 2 conv icti ons. In each cas e, puni shment w as ass ess ed at li fe i mpri sonment , to run conc ur re nt w it h eac h oth er and to ru n conc ur re nt w it h two s eparate s entenc es ar is ing from two addi ti onal i ndi ctment s. I n e a ch o f these t hree appe als , Ap pel lan t c ontends( 1) the 2 Stat e’sev ide nce present ed dur ing his ple a proceed ing was factual ly i nsuffici ent a nd ( 2) the three l ife s entenc es to r un c oncur re ntl y w it h each o th e r and w it h the othe r sent ences i mp o s e d we re d i s p ro p o rt i o n a t e t o t h e b u rg l a r y o ffe n s e s t o w h i c h h e p l e d g uil ty , i. e., his pu ni s hm en t w as c r ue l a nd u nu s ua l
. W e affi r m. Back ground O n O c t o b er 2, 20 06, a Lub bock Cou nty Grand Jury returne d the indictm ent s in Cau se Nos . 200 6- 413,889 and 2006- 413,895 , c harg ing Appel lan t w it h the offense of burg lar y of a habi tati on. The in dictment in Cau se No. 2 006- 413,889 al leg es Appel lan t int enti onal ly , w it hout the e ff e ct iv e c onsen t of the ow ner , Pa mela Patt on, e ntered her hab itation w ith the inten t to comm it the f t on Septe mb er 6, 20 06. The indictm entin Cause No. 2006-413, 895 al leg es Appel lan t i ntent ion all y , w it hout the e ffect iv e c onsen t of the ow ner , Brandy e J o rd a n, en tered her habi tati on w it h the i ntentto commi t t heft on September

1, 2006.Th e i n d i ctme n ta l l e g e s t h a t , p r i o r t o t h e c o mm i s s i o n o f t h e a l l e g e d b u rg l a r y o f a 3 habi tati on, A ppel lan t had been conv icted for the feloni es of bu rg lar

y and credi t card abus e. The in dictment all eg ed App ell ant h ad been co nv icted for the fe lo n y

of burg lar

y on September

9, 1992 i n the 237 D is tr ict C our t of Lubboc k C ounty , Texa s, in Cause No . 92- th 414 ,99 1 an d, on August 31 , 199 0, he was convicted of the felon y of credit card ab use in the 1 37 D is tr ict C our

t of Lubboc k C ounty , Texas, i n C ause No. 89- 409,763
. th See f n. 3. Appe llant’s tw o oth er convictions are the subjectof app eals f iled in this 4 Court in Cause Nos. 07-07 -022 2-CR and 07-07-02 24-CR. Opinion s in these app eals are b e in g i s s u e d si m u lt a n e o u s ly. 3 On Novemb er 21, 2 006 , a Lub bock County Grand Jury returne d the indictm entin Cau se No. 2006- 414,532 ch arg ing Appell ant w it h the of fense of burg lar y of a habit ati on. T he ind ictme nt alleges Ap pellan t inten tiona lly , w ithou t the e f fective consen t of

the owner, Edward M arti nez , ent ered hi s h abi tati on w it h i ntentto commi t t heft on Au g ust14, 2006. T h e in d ic t m e n t s in Ca u s e No s . 2 0 0 6 -4 1 3 , 8 8 9 a n d 2 0 0 6 -4 1 4, 5 3 2 a ls o co n t a in e d two enhanc ement pa ra g ra phs al leg ing Appel lan t had pr ior felony co nv icti ons. Al thoug h the

3 ind ictment in Cau se No. 2006- 413,895 di d notco ntai n any enhanc ement pa ra g ra phs, the Stat e s ubseq uentl y

fil ed a Not

ic e of Enh a n cem ents

al leg ing the same p ri or felony convictions. On M ay 10, 2007, Appel lan t app eared i n open cour t, w it h c ounse l, and after hav ing been du ly

swor n ac know led g ed to the cour t that it w as his “in tent to en ter an o pen pl ea to each of the c ases thatare pendi ng ag ain st [hi m] here tod ay .” Ap p e ll ant fur ther 4 ack now led g ed th ere was no p le a a gre e m ent w it h the Sta te, hispl ea was freel y and v olu ntar il y

g iv en and he was 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 jur y , asThe W ri tten Admoni shment s w ere si g ned by Appel lan t, his attor ney , and the tr ial 5 judge. T he a dm onish me nts s e tfo rth the range of pun ishm entfor the ch arges in each indictm ent ; af

f irmed App e lla nt’s me nta l comp ete ncy; admitt ed h is plea w as giv en f reely and volu ntar il y ; recog niz ed no one made any promis es to hi m to i nduce hi s p lea ; admi tted hisundersta ndi ng reg ardin g hi s c onst it uti onal r ig hts to tr ial by j ur y , r ig ht t o c onfront w it ness es and the rig ht to not be compel led to tes ti fy ag ain st hi msel f at t ri al; ac know led g ed tha t if h e p le ads guiltyhe w aives the aforem ent ione d rig hts; a cknowledged 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. 4 w ell as hi s r ig ht to confro nt and cross -e x amine w it ness es in open c our t. The record furt her ref lects App ellantf iled his W ritten Adm onish m ents, w herein he ind ic ated he was “d esi ri ng 5 to en ter a plea of

g uilty.” W ithou t forma lly e liciting a plea o f

guilty in accord ance w ith article 27.13 of the Tex as Cod e o f C rim inal Procedu re , t he tr ial co urt rev iewed th e al leg ati ons co n ta in e d in ea ch in d ict m e n t a n d a sk e d A p p e lla n t if h e wa s “p le a d in g guil ty to th e ch a rge becau se y ou are g uil ty

and for no other

reaso n.” In eac h c ase, Appel lan t ans w ered i n the aff ir mati v e. The tr ial co urt t hen rev iewed the enhanc ements cont ain ed in the i ndi ctment and not ice and ex pla ine d the ir effecton t he rang e of puni shment
. There w ere no obj e ct io n s to t he procedu re by w hic h the tr ial co urt “ acc epted” Appel lan t’ s p lea s. U pon conc lus ion of the p ro ceedi ng , t he tr ial co urt pronounc ed App ell ant’s s e n te nce at confine ment for li fe in e ach cas e. Discus sion Appel lan t rais es two i denti cal l eg a l iss ues in each appeal
. He cont ends the ev ide nce is “fact ual ly ins uff ic ien t” to suppo rt each of hi s conv icti ons 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 factual suff ic ien cy rev iew w here, as here, he hasJacks 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 pled g uilty to a trial courta n d wa ive d h is right to a jury trial. H e ne xt asserts his pun ishm entis disproportion ate to his crimes be cause , und er the a pplicab le statu tory schem e, he w ill be required to s e rve at least th irty y ears of his sente nces b efore he is eli g ibl e for parole
. Issu e On e -F act ual In suf fi cien cy Appel lan t c ontendsthe ev ide nce is “ factual ly i nsuffici ent” to suppo rthi s c onv 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 here a defend antknowi ngly , i n t e ll ig e n t ly a n d vo lu n t a rily plea ds guilty or nolo contender

e to a fe lony, the app ellate stand ards of rev iew for legal and factu al suf f iciency 6 7 do notappl y . Ex par

te M ar ti n, 7 4 7 S
. W
. 2 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 1 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 88) ; Ex par te W il li am s, 703 S.W .2d 674, 678 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1986) ; O’ Br ienv. Sta te, 154 S. W .3d 9 08, 910 (T ex .App. –Da ll as 2005, no pet .) ; Kel ler v. Sta te, 125 S. W .3d 6 00, 6 04- 05 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2003, pet. di sm’ d) , cer t. denied, 544 U. S. 906, 12 5 S. Ct. st 1603, 161 L. Ed.2d 280 ( 2005)
.6

W e find Appel lan t’ s p lea s c onst it ute volu n ta ry ju d ici al confess ion s o f gui lt
. See Di nner y, 592 S. W .2d a t 352 -5 3; Har p v . St ate , 148 Tex .C ri m. 354, 187 S.W .2d 5 70, 5 71 (1 945)( op. o n reh’ g) ; Lor d, 63 S. W .3d a t 92; Stewar t, 12 S. W .3d a t 148
. And, hav ing cons ide re d the record, w e concl ude there w as suff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t t he j udg ments under ar ti cl e 1.1 5 of the Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re . Appel lan t’ s i ss ues are ov er ru led
. Iss ue Tw o - Cruel and Unusual Punis hment Appel lan t al so cont ends the s entenc es impos ed on him w ere di spropor ti onate and cons ti tuted cr uel and unusu al puni shmentunder the Tex as and U nit ed St ates Con sti tuti ons. To pres er v e error for appeal, a party

m ustm ake a ti mely , s peci fic o bje cti on or moti on to the tr ial co urt t hat s tatesthe g ro unds for th e r uli ng so ug ht w it h s uff ic ien t spec ific ity

and compl iesw it h the r ule s o f ev ide nce a n d p ro cedure. See Tex . R . Ap p. P
. 33. 1 (a ). A n argume nt th at th e pu nishm entassesse d is cruel and u nusu al is waived if present ed for the first ti me on ap peal
. Id; Jac oby v. State , 227 S .W .3 d 12 8 , 130 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 D is t.] 2006, pet. ref’d)
. Beca use Appel lan t made no objecti on to st the t ri al cour

t rais ing the is sue of cr uel and unusu al puni shment , he has w aiv ed th is i ss ue on appe al. See Rhoades v. Sta te , 934 S.W .2d 1 13, 1 20 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1996) ; Curry v. State , 910 S.W .2d 4 90, 4 97 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1995)
. H ow ev er , ev en abs ent waiv e r, after co mpari ng the temporal numerosi ty and ser iou snes s o f the felony offensesfor w hic h h e was conv icted i n l ig ht of hi s p ri or conv icti ons for s imi lar

offensesw it h the se ntenc es asses se d t h e re on, we c oncl ude t hat7

Appel lan t’ s s entenc es w ere notunc onst it uti onal ly di spropor

ti onat e and, thus , di d not cons ti tute cr uel and unusu al puni shment
. See, e.g., Winches ter v. Sta te, 246 S. W .3d 3 86, 390- 91 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2008, no pet .)
. These i ss ues are al so ov er ru led
. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ments are aff ir med.

Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Ju sti ce Do not p ubl is h.