Opinion filed February 27, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00052-CR

__________

JIMMY BERNARD BILLINGSLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1235745D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Jimmy Bernard Billingsley entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of 

aggravated assault. Upon accepting his plea, the trial court found him guilty of the 

offense and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of fifteen years. In a single 

issue, Appellant challenges his conviction by arguing that the evidence in support 
of his guilty plea was insufficient under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.15 

(West 2005). We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged in a four-count indictment with committing various 

forms of assault by transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to Q.S. 

Appellant pleaded guilty to Count Four of the indictment.1

 Count Four alleged that 

Appellant intentionally or knowingly committed assault by causing serious bodily 

injury to Q.S. by causing her to contract HIV. Appellant executed a “Judicial 

Confession” whereupon he swore under oath that he had read the indictment “filed 

in this case and [he] committed each and every act alleged therein, except those 

acts waived by the State.” At the plea hearing, Appellant testified that he was 

pleading guilty because he was guilty “and for no other reason.”

Analysis

Appellant contends that his guilty plea was void because the State did not 

present sufficient evidence under Article 1.15 that he caused serious bodily injury 

by the transmission of HIV. In support of his argument, Appellant cites various 

publications that were not presented to the trial court; he asserts that the 

transmission of HIV should not be considered per se serious bodily injury today 

because of medical advancements in the treatment of the disease and the stigma 

presented by such a characterization. The State responds by arguing that 

Appellant’s judicial confession alone satisfied the requirements of Article 1.15. 

We agree with the State’s contention.

When a criminal defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleads 

guilty, he waives his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence under the 

traditional standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Ex parte 

 1

At the plea hearing, the trial court stated that Appellant pleaded guilty to “Count Five.” 

Appellant acknowledges in his brief, however, that he actually pleaded guilty to Count Four in the 

indictment.
Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). However, when a 

defendant pleads guilty before the trial court to a noncapital felony offense, a 

conviction is not authorized under Article 1.15 unless there is evidence offered to 

support the guilty plea. Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009). When the defendant enters a guilty plea, there is no requirement that the 

supporting evidence prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d at 792; Staggs v. State, 314 S.W.3d 155, 159 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.); McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Rather, in reviewing the sufficiency of the 

State’s evidence, we will affirm the trial court’s judgment if the evidence embraces 

every essential element of the offense charged. Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 

427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A conviction rendered without sufficient evidence to 

support a guilty plea constitutes trial error. Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 14.

A person commits aggravated assault by committing an assault that causes 

serious bodily injury to another. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(1) (West 

2011). “‘Serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk 

of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss 

or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Id. § 1.07(a)(46) 

(West Supp. 2014). The indictment alleged in Count Four that Appellant “caused 

serious bodily injury to [Q.S.]” by “causing [Q.S.] to contract human 

immunodeficiency virus (HIV).” Appellant contends that the State failed to 

present evidence that he caused serious bodily injury by transmitting HIV to Q.S. 

However, Appellant judicially confessed to this element of the offense by 

confessing to “each and every act alleged” in the indictment. A judicial confession 

will suffice to support a guilty plea as long as the confession covers all of the 

elements of the charged offense. Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 13. We conclude that

Appellant’s judicial confession covered all of the elements of the charged offense, 
including the element challenged by Appellant on appeal. We overrule 

Appellant’s sole issue.

This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY

JUSTICE

February 27, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.