## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00111

- CR No. 02

- 19

- 00112

- CR No. 02

- 19

- 00 113

- CR

_ __________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No s . 1507506D, 1550423D, 1561923R Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Op inion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### J OEY 

### A BRAHAM 

### M OOSO 

### , Appellant

V 

### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant J oey Abraham Mooso entered open pleas of guilty to a count of

s econd

- degree

- felony possession with intent to promote child p ornography ( Cause No. 1507506D) , five counts of third

- degree

- felony po ssession of child p ornograph y (C ause No . 15 5 04 23D), and two counts of second

- degree

- felony sexual assault of a child under th e age of 17 (Cause No. 1561923R). See Tex. Penal Code Ann
. § § 22.011 ( a) (2); 43.2 6 (a), (e)
. In so doing, Mooso signed judici al con fessi ons in each case that stated in relevant part , “ I have read the indictment or information filed i n this case and I commi t ted each and every act alleged therein, except those acts waived by the State. All facts al leged i n the indictment or infor mation are true and
correct . ” [Emphasis added.] By the terms of the judicial confessions, Mooso a greed that the trial court to ok j u dicial notice of the confessions. See Davis v. State , 02

- 15

- 00183

- CR, 2016 WL 3452786, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth June 2 3, 2 016, pet. ref ’ d ) ( holding judicial confession sufficient to support guilty plea that included a statement acknowledging trial cou r t ’ s judicial notice of the same ). Mooso d id not challenge the sufficiency of th e indictme n ts a gainst him , nor does he challenge them on appeal. Rather, Mooso argues in his s o le issue that the State was required to introd uce ev idence into the record sho w ing Mooso ’s guilt despite his signing the judicial confessions. See Te x. C ode Cr i m. Proc. Ann. art. 1. 15 ( “ [I] t shall be necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant
. . . . ”). In so doing, Mooso asks u s to disregard the court3

of cr iminal appeals ’ decision i n Dinnery v. St ate , in whi ch the court reiterated that a jud icial conf

ession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea. 592 S. W.2d 343, 353 , 354 (Tex. Crim. A pp. [Pan e l Op.] 19 80 ) ( op. on reh ’ g) ( “ It should be remembered that a judicial c onfession d oes not requi re corro boration, and the cases cited did not hold that a judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain the guilty plea provided there is other e vidence in the record to also support the con viction. ” )
. Because we a re bound b y the decisions of the court of criminal appeals , we decline Mooso ’ s invitation to disregard Dinnery
. See Wiley v. State , 112 S.W.3d 173, 175 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, pet . ref ’d ) ( “[A]s an intermediate appellate court we are bound to follow t he pronounc ements of the court of criminal appeal s. ”). And, f ollowing Dinnery , we hold that Mooso ’s written judicial confession was sufficient to meet the State ’s burden under A rtic le 1.15 in each case and overrule Mooso ’s sole issue on appeal. See Davis , 2016 WL 3 452786, at *2 (holding similarly). Accordingly,

w e af firm the trial court ’s judg ment.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered : O c tober 24, 2019