## NO. 12-07-00001-CR
IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

ROBER T LEE MENE

FEE , § APPEAL F ROM THE S

EV ENTH APPELLANT
V . § JU DI CIAL DI STR ICT CO UR T
TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Robert L ee Menefe e appeals hi s conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substa nce, na

mely coca ine. Appellant’ s counsel filed a brief in c ompliance with Anders v. Cal if or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. C t. 1396, 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 (1967), a nd Ga ino us v

. St ate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After revie wing the record, we abated t he appe al and r emande d the c a se to t

he tr ia l cou

rt to ap po int ne w co un se l to r e pr e se nt A pp e lla nt, re vie w the re c or d, and fi le

a brief on the merits for Appe llant. As instructed, Appe llant filed a ne w brief on appea l, arguing that the evidenc e is insufficient to support his c onviction and that his trial counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive

a ssi sta nc e by a llo wi nghim

to b e c onvic te d o n in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e . We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant wa s char g ed by indictment for possession with intent to deliver a c ontrolled substance, na

mely coca ine, in an amount of one gram or mor e but less than four g rams, includingSee T EX
. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E A NN
. § 4 8 1 .1 1 2 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). A n o ff e n se un d e r su b se c tio n (a ) is 1

a se c o n d d e g re e felo n y if the a m o u n t o f t h e c o n tro lled su b sta n c e to w h ic h the o ff e n se a p p lies is, b y a g g re g a te w e igh t, inc lud ing a d u lter a n ts o r d iluta n ts, o n e gr a m o r m o re b u t l e ss th a n fo u r g ra m s. See T EX
. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C ODE A NN
. § 48 1

. 1 1 2 (c) (V ernon 2 0 0 3 ).

A n o f f en se o t he rw i se p un i sha b l e a s a sec o nd d eg ree f elo ny und er se cti o n 4 8 1 .11 2 i s p un i sha b l e a s a f i rst 2 deg r ee f el on y i f i t i s s h own t h at t h e of

f en s e wa s c ommi t t ed i n , on , or w i t h i n 1, 000 f ee t of pr emi s es ow n ed, r en t ed, or le a se d b y a n institutio n o f hig h e r le a rn ing

. See T EX
. H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E A NN
. § 481. 134( b) ( 1) ( V er n on Su pp. 2 0 0 8 ).

If it is sho w n o n the trial o f a first d e g re e felo n y tha t t h e d e fen d a n t ha s b e e n o n c e b e fo re c o n v ic te d o f a

3 f el o ny , on co nvi ct i o n he s hal l be punis hed by i m p ri sonm ent f o r l i f e, or f o r any t erm of no t m o re t han ni net y - ni ne ye a rs o r le ss th a n fi ftee n ye a rs a n d , i n a d d iti o n , a fine no t t o e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

. See T EX
. P E N A L C O D E A NN
. § 1 2 .4 2 (c )( 1 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 2 any adultera nts and dilutants. The indictment alleg ed, in the portion re levant to this a ppeal, that 1

“ on or a bo ut t he 2 6t h day of

Janu ary , 2 00 6,

. . . RO B ERT MENE F EE did the n a nd the re po sse ss with intent to deliver, a c ontrolled substance, namely , coca ine, i n an amount of one (1) gr am or more but less than four (4) gr ams, including any adultera nts and dil utants.” The indictment a lso alleg ed that Appellant committed the offe nse within 1,000 fee t of a pre mises owned, re nted, or lea sed by an instit ution of highe r lea

rning , or within a drug fre e zone. Fur ther, the indictment alleg ed that prior 2 to the commission of the offe nse, Appe llant was convic ted of the f elony offe nse of possession of a controlled substanc e. 3 On Octobe r 2, 2006, Appellant entered an “ope n” plea of guilty to the offe nse cha

rg ed in the indictment. Appellant and his counsel s i gned an a cknowledg ment of admonishments, a wa iver of jury trial, an a g ree ment to stipul ate testimony , and a stip ulation of evidenc e in which Appe llant swore that such stipulation constit uted the evide nce in this ca se. Ac cordi n g t o t h e st ipulation of evidenc e, App e ll an t s ti p u late d th a t h e “ d id

th e nan d th e r e w it

hinte n t t o d e li v e r , a

c o n tr o ll ed

su bs tanc e , n ame ly , c oc a in e, in an amou nt o f o ne (1 ) gra

m or mor e but le ss t

ha n f our ( 4) g ra

ms, including a

ny adultera nts and dilutants.” The word “possess” was om itted from the stipulation of

e vid e nc e . A ft e r A

pp e lla nt w a s sw or

n in a t the ple a he ari ng , he wa ive d the re a din g of the ind ic tme nt. The trial c ourt stated, “Mr. Menef ee, in y our case the g rand jury returne d an enhance d first deg ree felony char g e of posse ssion of a controlled subs t an ce wi th intent to deliver,” a nd then re cited the applicable rang e of punishment. The trial court a sked Appe llan t i f he unde rstood the ra ng e of punishment. Appellant replied, “ Yes, sir.”T h e P S I w a s n o t i n c lud e d in the re c o rd p ro v id e d o n a p p e a l. 4
3 The trial c ourt then said, “K nowing that that’s the rang e of punishment, the paper work that’s be e n p ro vid e d to me tha

t in dic a te s th a t you ’v e de c ide d to e nte r a n o pe n p le a of

g uil ty in r e latio n to that particula

r cha rg e and le ave it to the cour t to decide what ty

pe of punishment should be asse ssed. I s that corr ect? ” Appe llant ag ree d that it was. The tria l court then a sked, “A s to that charg e in the i n d i c t m e n ta s w e ’ v e j u s tc o v e r e d , h o wd o yo u p l e a d , g u i l ty o r n o tg u i l ty? ” Ap p e l l an tp l e a d e d g u i l ty. The only evidenc e offere d by the State was the “plea

packe t,” which wa s admitted into evidence and included Appe llant’s signe d an d wr i tten stipulation of evidence . Appellant plea ded “tr ue” to the prior fe lony

conviction enha

nceme nt para g raph. The t ri al co urt adjudg ed Appe llant guilty of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substanc e. At the sentenc ing he aring on Dec ember 1, the trial cour

t took judicial notice and re viewed the pre sentenc e investig ati o n repor t (“PSI ”). The trial c ourt assesse d Appellant’s punishment at

4 fifty -six y ear s of imprisonment and a $10,000 f ine. Appellant’ s first appellate attorney filed a br ief in compliance w ith Ande rs and Ga ino us , stating the re w as no er ror on whi ch an ap peal c ould be predic ated. That attorney also moved for leave to withdraw. Appellant filed a pro se brief in whic h he ra ise d tw o is su e s. He argue d th a t hi s c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tive ass is tanc e fo r f

a ili ngto interview a

materia l witness an d b y i n t entionally and willfully

withholding evide nce. F urther, he contende d t h at t h e j u dg e who issued the se arc h war rant in this case had a c onflict of intere st and should have be en disqualified, r ender ing the sear ch wa rra nt invalid. We thoroug hly

revie wed the r ecor d, and discove red that the wor d “p o s s ess” was omitted from the stipulation of evidenc e. We conc luded that the ab s ence of this cruc ial word in the stipulation of evidence could pre sent an arguable issue for appea l. As such, we abate d the appe al

and re mand e d th e c a se to t

he tr ia l c ourt

to a pp oint ne w a

pp e llate c ou ns el to re pr e se nt A pp e lla nt, revie w the re cord, a

nd file a brief on the merits. See Me ne fe ev . St ate , No. 12-07-00001- CR, 2008 WL787851, at *3 (Te x . App.–Tyler Mar . 26, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for pu bli c a tio n) . A c c or din g ly , App e ll ant fi led a ne w b ri e f o n a

pp e a l, a rguin g that th e e vid e nc e is insufficient to suppo rt his conviction and that his trial counsel r ender ed inef fec tive assistance by allowing him to be convicted on insuff icient evidenc e.4 S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE In his first issue, Appellant conte nds the evidenc e is insufficient to support his conviction. More spe cifica lly , he ar g ues that there was no e vidence to support his guilty plea. Stand ard of Review Acc ordingt o ar t i cl e 1.15 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Proce dure, no pe rson ca n be convicted of

a fe lony except on the ver dict of a jury duly rende red a

nd rec orded, unle ss he, upon enter ing a plea, ha s in open court in per son waived his rig ht of trial by jury in writing. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art

1. 15 (V e rn on

20 05 ). Ar

tic le 1. 15 a lso state s th a t it is n e c e ssa

ry fo r t he state to i ntr od uc e e vid e nc e int o th e re c or d s ho wi ngthe g uil t of the defe nd ant, and

“ in n o e ve nt s ha ll a person c har ged b e convicted upon his plea without sufficient evide nce to support the sa me.” Id. This evidence may

be stipulated if the de fenda nt consents in writing , in open cour t, to waive the appea ranc e, conf

rontation, and c ross examination of witnesses, and further consents either to an ora l stipulation of the evidence and testimony or t o the introduction of testimony by aff idavits, written state me nts of

wi tne sse s, and

any oth e r d oc ume nta

ry e vid e nc e in sup po rt of the jud g me nt of the c ourt

. Id. I f the defe ndant elec ts to stipulate to e vidence ag ainst him, his stipulation is a kind of judicial admission, a “for

mal confe ssion[ ] i n the pleading s in the case or stipulations by a par ty or counse l that have the eff

ect of withdrawinga fa ct from issue a nd dispensing wholly

with the need f

or proof of the fa ct.” Bry ant

v . St ate , 1 8 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 9 7 , 4 0 0 (T ex
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g J o h nW

. S t ro n g, et al., M C C OR MI C K ON E V I D EN CE § 255 (5th ed. 1999))

. A lt h o u g ha p le a o f g u il ty is ana dmi s s io no f g u il t o f th e o f f e n s e c h ar g e d , it

d o e s n o t a

u th o r iz e a convic tion in a bench tria l upon such plea unle ss there is evide nce of fer ed to support t he plea

and the judg ment to be enter ed. Di nne ry v . St ate , 5 9 2 S. W. 2 d

3 4 3 , 3 5 1 ( T e x. Cr im

. Ap p
. 1 9 7 9 ). A ju d i c i a l c o n f

e s s i o n , s t an d i n g a l o n e , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n u p o n a g u i l ty p l e a a ndto satisfy the re quirements of a rticle 1.15. Id

. a t 35 3. Whe n th e state int ro du c e s e vid e nc e , a

n a pp e llate court a ffirms the tria l court’s judg ment under a rticle 1.15 if the evidenc e introduced e mbrac es eve ry essential ele ment of t he offense charg ed and is sufficie nt to establish the defendant’s guilt. Bre aux
v . St ate , 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 5 4 , 8 5 7 (T ex
. Ap p
. – Ho u s t o n[ 1 4 thDi s t

. ] 2 0 0 0 , p et

. re f’ d ) ( ci t i n g Ston e v. Sta te , 919 S.W. 2d

42 4, 42 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 )) ; Wri ght v . St ate , 9 3 0 S. W. 2 d

1 3 1 , 1 3 2 ( T e x. App.–Dallas 1996, no pe t.). But see Wil lia ms v. Sta te , 950 S.W. 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 4 n
. 1 ( T e x.5

App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d) (ac knowledg ing a lack of consensus on the standa

rd for revie wing evidenc e to support a judg ment pursuan t to article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e); Burg

e r v . St ate , 920 S.W .2d 433, 435 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. re f’d) (using the Jackson v. V

irgin ia leg al sufficie ncy standard to r eview the sufficie ncy of the stipulated evidenc e). I f a sti pu latio n d oe s no t su

pp or t a de fe nd ant’ s g uil ty ple a , a c ou rt mus t de te rm ine if

the re is other e vidence to support the g uilty plea. Di nne ry , 592 S.W .2d at 352. I f a de fenda nt testifies that he has r ead the indictment and that it was “true and corr ect” or t hat the alleg ations in the indictment

wer e “tr ue and c orre ct,” this testimony constitutes a judicial admission of the offe nse cha

rg ed and is suf fi ci en t to support a guilty plea. Id
. at 352-54. L ikewise, if a defe ndant testifies that he w as ple a din g g uil ty

“ jus t a s h e wa s c ha

rg e d in the ind ic tme nt, ” that is a

su ff ic ie nt j ud ic ia l c on fe ssi on

to support a guilty

plea unde r ar

ticle 1.15. Coo

pe r v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 533, 5 3 5 (T ex . Crim. App. [P anel Op.] 1978). Appli cation The State must introduce e vidence embra cing eac h and ever y element of the cha

rg ed off ense. See Bre aux , 1 6 S. W.3 d at 85 7. In th e pr e se nt c a se , th e sti pu latio n o f e vid e nc e a dmi tte d into evidenc e wa s insufficient to support the convic tion becau s e it lacke d an esse ntial element of the

c h ar g e d o f

f e n s e , i

. e
. , “ p o s s e s s i o n
. ” H o w e v e r , th e r e i s n o r e qu i r e m e n t th a t a l l o f th e e v i d e nc e to support a guilty plea be contained in the written stipulation of evidence

. See Di nne ry , 592 S.W .2d

a t 35 2. In th is c a se , App e lla nt w a s sw or

n in a t the be g inn ing of the ple a he ari ng
. Th e tr ia l c ourt , in the cour se of the ple a, aske d Appellant, “Mr. M en efee, in y our ca se the g rand jury returne d an enhanc ed first deg ree felony char g e of posse ssion of a controlled substanc e with an intent to deliver ,” and then reviewe d the rang e of punishment applicable to that char g e. Af ter Appe llant ag ree d that he wa s e nte ri ngan “ op e n” ple a of g uil ty to that c ha rg e , th e tr ia l c ourt

a sk e d, “ As to t

hat c ha rg e in the indictment as we ’ve just cove red, howdo y ou plead, guilty or not g uilty ? ” Appe llant responded, “Guilty , Your Honor .” Be cause Appellant ora lly pleade d g uilty “[a]s to that char g e in the indictment”–possession of a controlled subst ance with intent to deliver–he supplied the element of poss ession, which wa s included in the indictment but omitted from his stipul ation of evide nce. See Di nne ry , 592 S.W .2d6

a t 35 2; Cooper , 573 S.W .2d at 535. The e vidence admitted at the plea hear ing inc luded Appellant’ s oral guilty

plea “[a] s to that char g e in the i ndictment” and his written sworn stipulation of evide nce, and, thus, embra ced e very essential ele ment of the c harg ed off ense. See Bre aux , 16 S.W .3d at 857. Th e re fo re , th e e vid e nc e is s uf fi c ie nt t o su

pp or t Ap pe lla nt’ s c on vic tio n fo r p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o deliver a controlled substanc e. Ac cording ly , Appellant’s f irst issue is overruled.

I N EF FE C TI V E A SSI STA N C E O F C OU N SEL In his second issue, App ell ant ar g ues that his trial counsel r ender ed inef fec tive assistance by a llo wi nghim

to b e c onvic te d o n in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e . M or e sp e c if ic a lly , h e c on te nd s th a t hi s tr ia l couns e l allo we d him to be fo un d g uil ty or se nte nc e d “ wh e re the re wa s n o e vid e nc e of fe re d to support the plea of

g uilty .” Ac cordingto Appellant, his tria l c ounsel allowed him “to be sentenc ed with no evidence that [he] actua lly possessed any

thing.” Thus, Appellant ar g ues that his written stipulation of evidence supporting his guilty plea “ utterly

fails.” Appli cable Law In r e vie wi ngan ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la im, we a

pp ly the Un ite d St a te s Su

pr e me Court’s two prong ed test in Stri ckland v. Washin gton , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. C t. 2052, 80 L . Ed. 2d 674 (1984). He rna nde

z v . St ate , 7 26 S .W .2 d 53 , 56-5 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ). Un de r t he fi rs t prongof the Stric kla nd test, an appellant must show that counsel’s perf ormanc e wa s “deficient.” Stric kla nd , 46 6 U. S. a t 68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 64 ; To ng v . St ate , 25 S.W .3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). “This re quires showing that counsel made err ors so serious that counse l was not functioning as t he ‘counsel’ gua

rante ed the defenda

nt by the Six th Amendment.” Strickla nd , 466 U.S. at 687, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 64 . T o b e su c c e ssf ul, an a pp e lla nt m us t “ sh owthat cou ns el’ s re pr e se ntatio n f e ll below an objec tive standard of rea sonablene ss.” Id

. , 4 66 U. S. at 68 8, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 64 ; To ng , 25 S.W .3d at 712. Under the sec ond prong , an appe llant must show that the “defic ient perf ormanc e pre

judiced the def ense.” S t r ic kla nd , 46 6 U.S. at

68 7, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 64 ; To ng , 25 S.W .3d at 712. The

a pp ro pr iate sta

nd ard fo r j ud g ingpr e

jud ic e re qu ir e s an a

pp e lla nt to “ sh ow that th e re is a re a so na ble p r o bability

that, but for counse l’s unprofe ssional error s, the result of the pr ocee ding w ould have be en differ ent.” Stric kla nd , 4 66 U. S. at 69 4, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 20 68 ; To ng , 2 5 S. W.3 d at 71 2. A r e a so na ble7

probability is a probability sufficie nt to undermine c onfidenc e in the outcome. Stric kla nd , 4 66 U. S.

a t 69 4, 10 4 S. Ct. a t 2068

. F ur the r, re vie w o f a

tr ia l c ouns e l’ s r e pr e se nta tio n is highly

de fe re nti a l. To ng , 25 S.W .3d at 712. Ana lys is We have no evidenc e from trial counsel’s perspec tive conce rning why he did not raise the omitted portion of Appellant’s wr itten stipulation of evidenc e. When the rec ord is silent about tria l

c ouns e l’ s r e a so ns fo r c ho os ing a pa rt ic ula r c ours e of a c tio n, fi nd ingtr ia l c ouns e l in e ff e c tiv e wo uld call for specul at i o n by

an appe llate cour

t. See Stult

s v . St ate , 2 3 S. W. 3 d

1 9 8 , 2 0 8 ( T e x. App.–Houston [14th Dis t.] 2000, pet. re f’d)

. We w ill not eng ag e in such spec ulation. See Jackson

v . St ate , 877 S.W .2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Nonethe less, we have alr eady conclude d that the e v id e n c e a dmi tt e d a t th e p le a h e ar in g , Ap p e ll an t’ s o r a l g u il ty p le a “ [a ]s to th a t c h ar g e in the indictment” and his written st ipulation of evidence embrac ed ea ch and e very element of

the cha rg ed

o f f e n s e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u

p p o rt h i s c o n v i c t i o n
. T hu s , Ap p e l l an t h a s n o t m e t h i s b ur d e n t o p r o v e , b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, that this aspe ct o f t rial counse l’s repr esentation fell below the sta nd ard of pr e va ili ngpr of

e ssi on a l no rm s. Fur ther, e ven if trial c ounsel’s fa ilure to raise the omission of the word “posse ssion” constituted deficie nt perfor mance , Appellant has not shown that he suffe red prejudice . Appellant voluntarily

pleade d g uilty

to t h e cha

rg ed off ense a nd, specific ally , the offe nse cha rg ed in the indictment refe renc ed by

the trial cour

t at the plea hear ing. Ba sed upon a review of the re cord be fore

us , w e c ann ot c on c lud e a s a matte r o f l aw that App e lla nt h a s sh ow n th e re is a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity of a dif fe re nt r e su lt i f h is tri a l couns e l ha d r a ise d th e omi ssi on of the wo rd “ po sse ssi on ” fr om h is

wr itt e n s tip ulatio n o f e vid e nc e pr ior to the ple a he ari ng
. Ac c or din g ly , App e lla nt’ s sec on d issu e is

overr uled.

D I S P OS I T I ON Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is affirm ed

. 

### S AM GRI FF I T H J ustice Opinion delivere d September 24, 2008. Pane l consist ed of

Wort hen, C. J. , G ri

f f i t h, J. , and H

oyl e, J. , di ss ent i ng.A n d e rs v . C a lifo rn ia , 38 6 U

. S. 73 8 , 87 S. C t

. 13 9 6 , 18 L. E d

. 2d 49 3 (19 6 7 ). 5

8 Irespe ctfully

dissent. Be cause Appellant’s plea of g uilty is not supporte d by evidenc e that Appellant possessed c ocaine , the e v i dence is insufficient to support Appellant’s c onviction. Acc ording ly , Iwould reve rse the judg ment of the trial c ourt and remand the c ase f or fur ther pr oc e e din g s.
B ACKG ROUND Appellant wa s char g ed with possession with the intent to deliver a c ontrolled substance , coca ine, in an amount of one g ram or more but less than four gr ams, including any adultera nts and d ilutants. See T EX
. H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.112(a) (Ve rnon 2003). B eca use of enhanc ement par ag raphs c ontained in the indi ctment, Appellant f ace d a punishment rang e of imprisonment for life, or f or any term of not more than ni nety -nine y ear s or less than fifte en y ear s and, in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000. SeeT EX
. P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.42(c) (1) ( Ver non 2003). B e fo re the c a se pr oc e e de d to tr ia l, A pp e lla nt e nte re d a

n “ op e n” ple a

of g uil ty to t he of fe ns e char g ed. At the hear ing in which Appellant plea ded guilty , afte r some initial admonishments, the trial court a sked Appe llant if he wished to ha ve the indictment r ead to him or if he desired to wa ive the re adingof the indictment. Appellant waived the re adingof the indictment. The tr ial court then stated the ra

ng e of punishment fac ed by Appellant, and Appellant acknowledg ed that he understood the ra ng e of punishment. The trial court a sked Appe llant if he desire d to “enter an open ple a of g uilty in relation to that particula r cha rg e” a nd have the trial court de cide the punishment to be a sse sse d. Ap pe lla

nt an sw e re d, “ Th a t’ s cor

re c t, Yo ur Ho no r. ” F ina lly , th e tr ia l c ourt state d “ As to th a tc h ar g e i nth e i n d i c t m e n ta s w e ’ v e j u s tc o v e r e d , h o w d o y o up l e a d , g u i l ty o r n o tg u i l ty ?” Appellant re sponded “Guilty , Your Honor .” Th e State of

fe re d App e lla

nt’ s v olu nta ry wr itt e n s tip ulatio n o f

e v i d e n c e t

h a t w a s a d m i tte d into evidenc e without objection. However, Appellant’s written stipulation of evidence omit ted the wor d “possess.” I

nstead, Appe llant stipul ated only that “[he] did then and there with intent to de liver, a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e , n ame ly , c oc a ine ” in an amou nt of on e g ra

m or m or e but le ss t

ha n f our gra ms, including adultera

nts a nd dilutants. The trial court f ound Appellant guilty

of possession with intent to deliver a

controlled substanc e. L a te r, a t a

se nte nc inghearin g , th e tr ia l c ourt a sse sse d App e lla

nt’ s p un ish me nt at f

if ty -s ix y ear s of imprisonment a

nd a $10,000 fine. Appe llant appea led. Afte r his first appe llate counse l filed an Ande rs ’ b ri ef

, we abate d the appe al and r emande d the ca se to the trial cour t to appoint new 5 appellate counsel. Appellant’s new appellate counsel then filed a brief r aisingtwo issues: whether there was suff

icient evidenc e for

the t rial cour

t to find Appellant g uilty , and whe ther trial c ounsel rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e.

T EX A S C O D E O F C R I M I N A L P R OC EDU R E AR TI C LE 1.15 In his first issue, Appellant ar g ues that the e vi d en ce w as insufficie nt to support the trial court’s judgme nt that A ppellant was g uilty of possession w ith intent to de l i v er a c o n trolled substance.O n a pp eal , t he St at e a r gu es t hat t he pres ent enc e i nv es t i gat i on r eport ( “ P SI” ) provi ded t o t he t r i al cour t at 6 the se n te n c ing he a rin g c o n ta ins e v id e n c e e sta b lishin g A p p e llan t’s gu ilt . H o w e v e r, the P S I w a s n o t o ff e re d into ev i den ce du r i n g t h e h ea r i n g a n d i s n ot a pa r t of t h e r ec or d on a ppea l

. W e, t h er ef or e, do n ot c on s i der w h et h er t h e PSI p ro v id e s e v id e n c e to su p p o rt the c o n v ic tio n in this c a se
. See B re w e r v . S ta te , N o. 12- 01- 00369- CR , 2004 T ex
. App. LE X IS 6 9 6 3 , at * 3

- 4 (T ex. A p p
. – T y l er Jul y 30 , 20 0 4 , no p et

. )( m e. op
. , not d esi gnat ed f o r pub l i cat i o n)( “Alt ho ugh a d ef end ant ’ s p ri o r convi ct i o n can b e est ab l i shed t hrough jud i ci al noti ce o f t he co nt ent s o f

t he co urt ’ s f

i l es, i ncl ud i ng t he co nt ent s o f

a P SI, t he P SI m ust be i n t he ap p el l at e reco rd i f an ap p eal i s t aken. O t herwi se, t he revi ewing co urt 9 Even when a de fenda

nt pleads guilty , the state must introduce e vidence into the rec ord showing the guilt of the defe ndant. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 1.15 (V ernon 2005) ; La ndo n v . St ate , 222 S.W. 3d 75 , 78 (T e x. Ap p. –T yle r 200 6, no pe t.) (“ Al tho ug h a ple a of g uil ty is an admission of guilt of the offe nse cha rg ed, it does not authorize a conviction in a bench trial upon such plea unless there is e vidence offe red to suppor t the plea and the judgme nt to be enter ed.”) . A defe ndant ca

nnot be convicte d upon his plea unl ess t here is sufficient evide nce to support the ple a and the c onviction. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . a rt . 1 .1 5. Th e e vid e nc e su ff ic ie ntl y su pp or ts the conviction if the evidence introduced e mbrac es eve ry essential ele ment of the off ense c harg ed and is sufficie nt to establish the defe ndant’s guilt. Landon , 222 S.W .3d at 78. T h u s , a j u d i ci al confe ssion alone suffic iently supports a guilty

plea so longas it embrac es eve ry essential ele ment of the off ense c harg ed. Bre aux

v . St ate , 16 S.W .3d 854, 856-57 (Te x . App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. re f’d) . A judicial conf ession is a statement by

the def endant g iven voluntarily

b efor e a mag istrate, or a

court, in the due course of leg al proc eeding s. Id . at 856. When a judici al co n fession or sti pulation does not support a def endant’ s conviction on a g uilty plea, we m ust deter mine if there is other evidenc e to support the convic tion. Di nne ry v . St ate , 59 2 S.W.2 d 343 , 352 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ); Landon , 222 S.W .3d at 78. Courts have found othe r evidenc e suff

icient to support a convic tion based on a guilty plea whe re the defe ndant s tated that he had re ad the indictment and the indictment was true a nd corr ect, D i

n n e ry , 592 S.W .3d at 352-54, wher e the de fenda

nt stated that he wa s pleadingg uilty just as he was c harg ed in the indictment and that he was saying he was guilty reg ardle ss of what punishment the cour t would assess, Cooper v. Sta te , 573 S.W .2d 533, 535 (T ex . Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1978), and whe re the defe ndant sig ned confe ssions that he committed the offenses as char g ed in the indictments and then te stified that the confe ssions were “ substantially true and cor rec t.” Po tts v

. St ate , 5 7 1 S. W. 2 d

1 8 0 , 1 8 1 n
. 1 , 1 8 2 ( T e x. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1978). He re , App e lla

nt’ s ju dic ia l c on fe ssi on

did no t e mbr a c e e ve ry e sse nti a l ele me nt of the of fe ns e char g ed. See Bre aux , 16 S.W .3d at 856-57. Spec ifically , Appellant’s judicial c onfession omitted the word “ possess.” Unlike Di nne ry , Appellant neve r stated that he had rea d the indictment or that the alleg ations in the indictment were true a nd corr ect. See Di

nne ry , 592 S .W .2 d a t 35 2. I n f a c t, Ap pe lla nt d id n ot e ve n s tate that he wa s p le a din g g uil ty “ jus t a s he wa s c ha

rg e d in the ind ic tme nt” and that “ he wa s sa

yinghe wa s guil ty re g ard le ss of wh a t punis hme nt t he c ourt wo uld a sse ss” a s in Cooper

. See Cooper , 5 73 S.W. 2d a t 53 5. Ins te a d, Ap pe lla

nt’ s te sti mony be fo re the tr ia l c ourt in t his case was a

bar eb o nes plea

of “Guilty , Your Honor .” F urther, A ppellant’s wr itten stipul ation of evidenc e did not state t hat Appellant was guilty “as charg ed in the i ndictment” or include any simil ar “catch-a ll” provision. See Bre aux , 16 S.W .3d at 857 n.2. Thus, the State prese nted a stipulation of e vid e nce that om itt e d a

n e sse nti a l e le me nt o f t

he c ri me and

fa ile d to buttr e ss t

hat st ipu latio n w ith any testimony

of Appe llant or any

other e vidence that supported Appe llant’s g uilty plea. 6can not det er mi ne ( 1) w het her t he s our ce i nf ormat i on ac t ual l y es t abl i s hes t he j udi ci al l y - not i ced f act an d (2) wh et her t he t ri al co urt err ed i n t aki ng judi ci al noti ce b ased up o n t he q ual i t y of t he source i nf o rma t i o n. ”)[i nt ernal ci t at i o ns omi t t ed]

. Eve n a s s u mi n g t h at a t r i al c ou r t t ak i n g j u di ci al n ot i ce of a PSI c ou l d e v er s u f

f i ci en t l y s u ppor t a c on v i ct i on w ith a gu ilt y p le a , t h e re c o rd in this c a se fo re c lo se s tha t re su lt.

B e c a u se I w o u ld su sta in A p p e llan t’s f irst issu e , I w o u ld no t re a c h A p p e llan t’s sec o n d issu e
. See T EX
. R. 7 A PP
. P. 47. 1. 10 Th e ma jor ity fo c us e s u po n th e tr ia l cou

rt ’s wo rd ingof

the tr ia l c ou

rt ’s qu e sti on

to A pp e lla nt. Howeve r, the f

ac t that the trial cour

t specifica lly

ref ere nced the “cha

rg e in the indictment” be fore Appellant pleade d g uilty is not evidenc e supporting the conviction. Simply put, the state is require d to suppor t a conviction on a plea

of guilty with evidence embra cingever y essential ele ment of the o ff en s e c h arg ed. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . a rt . 1 .1 5; Landon , 2 22 S.W. 3d a t 78 . In th is case , the State did not fulfill its obligation.
C ONCL US I ON On the se fa c ts, Iwo uld

fi nd the e vid e nc e ins uf

fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio n, and

Iwo uld su sta in A pp e lla nt’ s f ir st i ssu e
. B e c a

us e Ap pe lla

nt v olu nta ri ly e nte re d a ple a of g uil ty , th e Do ub le 7 J e o p ar dy Cl a

u s e o f th e F if

th A me n dme n t to th e U n it e d St a te s Co n s ti tuti o n d o e s n o t prec lude a second tria l. See Bre aux , 1 6 S. W.3 d at 85 7 n .3 . I , th e re fo re , w ou ld r e ve rs e and re mand the c a us e to t he tr ia l c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. B e c a

us e the ma

jor ity ha s in ste a d o ve rr

ule d App e lla

nt’ s f ir st iss ue , I re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.



### BRIAN HO Y LE J ustice

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)