NO._________________

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

JIMMY BERNARD BILLINGSLEY

Petitioner

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Respondent

Petition is in Cause No. 1235745D from

Criminal District Court No. Three of Tarrant County, Texas,

and Cause No. 01-13-00052-CR in the

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Abe Factor

TBN: 06768500

Factor, Campbell & Collins

Attorneys at Law

5719 Airport Freeway

Phone: (817) 222-3333

Fax: (817) 222-3330

Email: lawfactor@yahoo.com

Attorneys for Petitioner

Jimmy Bernard Billingley
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The following is a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s

final judgment, as well as the names and addresses of all trial and

appellate counsel.

Petitioner: Jimmy Bernard Billingley

Petitioner’s Trial Counsel: Hon. Abe Factor

TBN: 06768500

Factor, Campbell & Collins

Attorneys at Law

5719 Airport Freeway

Fort Worth, Texas 76117

Petitioner’s Counsel Hon. Abe Factor

on Appeal: TBN: 06768500

Factor, Campbell & Collins

Attorneys at Law

5719 Airport Freeway

Fort Worth, Texas 76117

Phone: (817) 222-3333

Appellee: The State of Texas

Appellee’s Trial Counsel: Hon.Rebecca McIntire

TBN: 00789254

Hon. Joshua Ross

TBN: 24046760

District Attorney’s Office

401 W. Belknap

Fort Worth, Texas 76196

Appellee’s Counsel Hon. Charles Mallin

on Appeal: TBN: 12867400

Hon. Andy Porter

TBN: 24007857

District Attorney’s Office

401 W. Belknap Street

Fort Worth, Texas 76196

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

REASONS FOR REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

I. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Petitioner’s

guilty plea was not void. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A. Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. Opinion Below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

C. Controlling Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

D. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases page

Billingsly v. State,

11-13-00052-CR, 2015 WL xxxxx (Tex. App.–

Eastland, February 27, 2015, no. pet. h.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). . .1-2, 3

Degrate v. State,

No. 05–04–00218–CR, 2005 WL 165182, (Tex. App.–

Dallas Jan. 26, 2005, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). . . . . . 6

Jackson v. Virginia,

443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . 4

Ex parte Martin,

747 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5

Mathonican v. State,

194 S.W.3d 59, 69–71 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2006, no pet.). . . . 6

Menefee v. State,

287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Najera v. State,

955 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. App.–Austin 1997, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Stone v. State,

919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Weeks v. State,

834 S.W.2d 559, 561–65 (Tex. App.–Eastland 1992, pet. ref’d). .6

Statutes

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 1.15 (West 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

iv
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(46) (West Supp. 2014). . . . . . . . . .5-6, 7

v
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Because Petitioner does not believe that oral argument will

materially assist the Court in its evaluation of matters raised by this

pleading, Petitioner respectfully waives oral argument.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Jimmy Bernard Billingsley (“Petitioner” or “Mr.

Billingsley”) was charged in Count Four of a four-count indictment of

intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to Quonta

Shaw by transmitting the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) to

Ms. Shaw through sexual intercourse. (C.R. 7-8). Appellant pled guilty

to Aggravated Assault Causing Serious Bodily Injury on December 28,

2012.(C.R. 167-171); (III R.R. 4). Appellant entered an open plea of

guilty to the Court and was sentenced to 15 years confinement in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (C.R. 187). Appellant filed a

timely Notice of Appeal on December 28, 2012.(CR191).

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The opinion of the Eleventh Court of Appeals Affirming Mr.

Billingsly’s judgment was handed down on February 27, 2015. See

Billingsly v. State, 11-13-00052-CR, 2015 WL xxxxx (Tex. App.–Eastland,

February 27, 2015, no. pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for

1
publication). This timely Petition for Discretionary review ensued.

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

GROUND FOR REVIEW ONE

I. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Petitioner’s

guilty plea was not void.

REASONS FOR REVIEW

1. The decision by the Eleventh Court of Appeals has decided an

important question of state law in a way that conflicts with the

applicable decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

2. The Eleventh Court of Appeals has so far departed from the

accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned

such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the Court

of Criminal Appeals’ power of supervision.

ARGUMENT

GROUND FOR REVIEW ONE (Restated)

I. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Petitioner’s

guilty plea was not void.

Because this petition is predicated upon error by the Eleventh

Court of Appeals in its review of Mr. Billingsley’s complaint on appeal,

a review of the evidence presented and events which transpired below

is in order.

2
A. Facts

Appellant Jimmy Billingsley and the complainant Quonta Shaw

had a sexual relationship. (IV R.R. 27). Prior to having sex with Ms.

Shaw, Mr. Billingsley was HIV positive. (IV R.R. 27). During this sexual

relationship Ms. Shaw contracted HIV from Mr. Billingsley. Mr.

Billingsley did not tell Ms. Shaw he was HIV positive prior to their

sexual relationship. (IV R.R. 27) Mr. Billingsley was indicted by a fourcount indictment of knowingly transmitting HIV to Ms. Shaw. (CR 7-8).

Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily

injury and went open to the judge for punishment. (C.R. 167-171) (IV

R.R. 4). After a trial on punishment before the trial court, Appellant

was sentenced to 15 years confinement in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice. (CR 187).

B. Opinion Below

Mr. Billingsley argued below that his plea of guilty was void

because the State failed to present any evidence to support his plea as

required by Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See

Billingsly, 2015 WL xxxxx at *1 (citing Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art.

3
1.15). In its Opinion, the Eleventh Court of Appeals simply held that

1

Mr. Billingsley’s judicial confession was sufficient to meet the

requirements of Article 1.15. Id.

C. Controlling Law

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, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Ex

parte 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

1

 No person can be convicted of a felony except upon the verdict of a jury

duly rendered and recorded, unless the defendant, upon entering a plea,

has in open court in person waived his right of trial by jury in writing in

accordance with Articles 1.13 and 1.14; provided, however, that it shall be

necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the record showing the

guilt of the defendant and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as

the basis for its judgment and in no event shall a person charged be

convicted upon his plea without sufficient evidence to support the same.

The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in such case consents in

writing, in open court, to waive the appearance, confrontation, and

cross-examination of witnesses, and further consents either to an oral

stipulation of the evidence and testimony or to the introduction of

testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and any other

documentary evidence in support of the judgment of the court. Such

waiver and consent must be approved by the court in writing, and be filed

in the file of the papers of the cause. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 1.15).

4
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. Rather, in reviewing the sufficiency of the State’s

evidence, a reviewing court 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.

D. Discussion

The indictment here alleged that Mr. Billingsley did

then and there intentionally or knowingly cause serious bodily injury

to [Q.S.]. . .by penetrating the female sexual organ, anus, or mouth of

[Q.S.] with the [appellant's penis, thereby causing [Q.S.] to contract the

human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). . .against the peace and dignity

of the State.

(C.R. 7-9). “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.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(46) (West

5
Supp. 2014). Although Mr. Billingsley pled guilty to “each and every

act” alleged in the indictment, the court of appeals apparently operated

under the assumption that contracting HIV is per se “serious bodily

injury,” as the indictment contains no further elaboration regarding any

connection between HIV and “serious bodily injury.” Neither the Fort

Worth Court of Appeals nor the Court of Criminal Appeals have held

2

that contracting HIV is “serious bodily injury.” The lack of any

3

principled connection to the essential element of “serious bodily

injury” can be illustrated here by substituting the word “flu” for

2

 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, this

case was transferred to the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Eastland by the

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex.

Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001 (West 2013). The Eleventh Court of Appeals by

rule was required to follow the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals

in deciding this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.

3

But see generally Mathonican v. State, 194 S.W.3d 59, 69–71 (Tex.

App.–Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (finding defendant’s HIV-positive seminal

fluid was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury); Degrate v.

State, No. 05–04–00218–CR, 2005 WL 165182, at *2, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS

547, at *4–8 (Tex. App.–Dallas Jan.26, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (finding legally and factually sufficient

evidence that the mouth of an HIV-positive defendant was a deadly

weapon when defendant bit the complainant); Najera v. State, 955 S.W.2d

698, 700–01 (Tex. App.–Austin 1997, no pet.) (finding legally and factually

sufficient evidence that defendant’s penis and seminal fluids were capable

of causing death); Weeks v. State, 834 S.W.2d 559, 561–65 (Tex.

App.–Eastland 1992, pet. ref’d) (finding evidence was sufficient to sustain

HIV-positive defendant’s attempted murder conviction for spitting at

complainant).

6
“human immunodeficiency virus,” as nowhere in the record is it shown

that “human immunodeficiency virus” is any more likely than the

common flu to cause “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.” See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(46).

As such, the court of appeals should not have held that sufficient

evidence was admitted to support Mr. Billingsley’s plea, as the

essential element of “serious bodily injury” is not supported.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner respectfully

prays that this Court grant discretionary review and allow each party

to fully brief and argue the issues before the Court of Criminal

Appeals, and that upon reviewing the judgment entered below, that

this Court reverse the opinion of the Eleventh Court of Appeals and

reverse the conviction entered below.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Abe Factor

Abe Factor

TBN: 06768500

Factor, Campbell & Collins

7
Attorneys at Law

5719 Airport Freeway

Fort Worth, Texas 76117

Phone: (817) 222-3333

Fax: (817) 222-3330

Email: lawfactor@yahoo.com

Attorneys for Petitioner

Jimmy Bernard Billingley

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that the word count for the portion of this filing

covered by Rule 9.4(i)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is

2,124.

/s/Abe Factor

Abe Factor

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

instrument has been furnished to counsel for the State’s Prosecuting

Attorney and the Tarrant County District Attorney by a manner

compliant with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, on this 30th

day of March , 2015.

/s/Abe Factor

Abe Factor

8
APPENDIX

1. Opinion of the Eleventh Court of Appeals.

9
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.
3/31/2015 Envelope Details

https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=913406b3­1183­4811­aa9f­19f7bb1186d5 1/2

Print this page

Envelope 4691878

Case Information

Location Court Of Criminal Appeals

Date Filed 03/30/2015 01:27:52 PM

Case Number

Case Description

Lower Court Number

Assigned to Judge

Attorney Abe Factor

Firm Name Factor & Campbell

Filed By Tess Bruner

Filer Type Not Applicable

Fees

Convenience Fee $0.00

Total Court Case Fees $0.00

Total Court Filing Fees $0.00

Total Court Service Fees $0.00

Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00

Total Service Tax Fees $0.00

Total Provider Service Fees $0.00

Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00

Grand Total $0.00

Payment

Account Name Factor & Campbell

Transaction Amount $0.00

Transaction Response

Transaction ID 7714072

Order # 004691878­0

Petition for Discretionary Review

Filing Type EFileAndServe

Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review

Filing Description Petition for Discretionary Review

Reference Number

Comments

Status Rejected

Fees

Court Fee $0.00
3/31/2015 Envelope Details

https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=913406b3­1183­4811­aa9f­19f7bb1186d5 2/2

Service Fee $0.00

Rejection Information

Rejection

Reason

Time Rejection Comment

Other

03/31/2015

03:30:11

PM

The petition for discretionary review does not contain the identity of Judge,

Parties and Counsel in compliance with [Rule 68.4(a)]; it is missing the identity of

the trial court judge. There is a typo in your court of appeals case number: 01­13­

00052­CR. You have ten days to tender a corrected petition for discretionary

review.

Documents

Lead Document Billingsley PDR.pdf [Original]

eService Details

Name/Email Firm Service Type Status Served

Date/Time

Opened

Lisa C. McMinn

information@spa.texas.gov

State

Prosecuting

Attorney

EServe Sent Yes Not Opened

Debra Windsor

coaappellatealerts@tarrantcounty.com

State of Texas EServe Sent Yes Not Opened