AFFIRM; 

### Opinion Filed November 5, 2012.

In The 

### nizrt rif i\ppeati 

## Fifth Jitrirt nf 

## Jixai tt 

### attw5 No. 05-i 1-00978-CR No. 05-1 1-00979-CR No. 05-1 1-00981-CR
RYAN SCOTT MIRAC[E, Appellant
‘J. TIlE STATE OF TEXAS, Appeilee On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court Rockw all County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 2-11-85, 2-11-86, and 2-11-88 

### OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers Appellant Ryan Scott Miracle, one ofseveral accomplices, was charged with three counts ofaggravated robbery. Appellant entered an open plea ofguilty in all three cases andwas sentenced bythe trial courtto concurrent sentences ofeightyears inprison in each case. In one issue on appeal appellant argues that his pleas were involuntary. We resolve appellant’s sole issue againsthim and affirm. Appellant argues that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily because (1) the indictments allege the use ofa “BB gun” and “BB Shotgun,” which are notdeadlyweapons; and (2) he only furnished the vehicle used in the robberies and “did not himselfuse or exhibit any

### weapon.” Stated differently, appellant argues that his pleas to the charges ofaggravated robbery
were not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he “did not use or exhibit any weapon at all [and] the weapon used by others was not a firearm ordeadly.” In arelated argument, appellant also complains thatthe trial court’s admonishment “failedto correctly statethe law” becausewithoutthe deadly weapon findings appellant could have been found guilty ofthe lesser included offense of robbery and “straight probation would have become a punishment option.” To the extent that appellant is complaining about a substantive defect in the indictment, he has waived this complaintbynotraising itbeforehis guiltyplea. See Tux. CODE CRIM, PRoc. ANN. 

### art. 1.14(b) (West 2005) (“Ifthe defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity ofform
or substance in an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the rightto objectto the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postconviction proceeding.”); Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (“[A] nonnegotiated guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects occurring prior to the entry ofthe guilty plea.”). And to the extent that appellant is complaining about the sufficiency ofthe evidence to supportthe deadly weapon findings, we conclude that appellant’sjudicial confessions are sufficient to support the findings. The indictments alleged that appellantused or exhibited a deadly weapon during commission ofthe aggravated robberies. Appellantpleaded guilty andjudiciallyconfessed to committing “each and every allegation” contained in the indictments. Appellant’s judicial confessions, alone, are sufficient to support the deadly weapon findings contained in the written judgments. SeeDinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (op. on reh’g) (“It is well settled that ajudicial confession, standing alone, 

### is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea and to satisfy the requirements ofArticle 1.15.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Alexanderv. State, 868 S.W.2d 356, 361 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.) (“Ifadefendantpleads —2—guilty to an indictment that includes an allegation that lie used a dead! weapon, the trial court may make a deadly weapon finding.”). Finally, with respect to appellant’s argument that his pleas were involuntary, we note that appellant did not complain to the trial court about the voluntariness ofhis guilty pleas eitherbefbre
or after his sentencing. UnderTexas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 33.1, aparty must first complain to the trial court and obtain a ruling in order to preserve most complaints for appellate review. See Tix. R. API. P. 33.1

. The court ofcriminal appeals and this Court have held that the rule 33. 1 requirement ofpreservation oferror applies to complaints about the voluntariness ofa guiltyplea. SeeMendez v. State, 13$ S,W.3d 334, 339,350 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Aldrich v. State, 53 S.W.3d 460. 468-69 (Tex. App.-—Dallas 2001), aj/’d, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We conclude that appellant has not preserved his complaint about the voluntariness ofhis guilty pleas for appellate review, But even ifappellant had preserved this issue for appellate review, we would resolve itagainsthim. There is no evidence in therecordthat appellant’s guiltypleas were notmade knowingly and voluntarily. To the contrary, the record demonstrates thatthe trial court admonished appellant as to the range ofpunishment for the first-degree felony ofaggravated robbery, and that appellantfullyunderstoodtheproceedings, includingthetrialcourt’s admonishments andtheeffects ofhis guilty pleas. CONCLUSION We resolve appellant’s sole issue against him and affirm the trial court’sjudgments.

Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P.47 1 10978F.U05

## nurt nf ;pprah 

## FiftIi Diitrirt nf 

## ixai tt 

## Lt11ai JUDGMENT RYAN SCOTT MIRACLE, Appellant No. 05-i 1-00978-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court ofRockwafl County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2-1 1-85). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald participatmg. Based Ofl the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the judgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMEI).
Judgment entered November 5, 2012.

1 ELIABETH LANG-MI S 

### / JUSICE

# 0
niirt tif _pit1 

## iift1i 1i;trirt nf rxa at Ja1{a JUDGMENT RYAN SCOTT MIRACLE. Appellant Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court ofRockwall County, Texas. No. 05- 11-00979-CR V. (Tr.Ct.No. 2-1 1-86). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald participating. Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the judgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 5, 2012.

/ I / kfZA13ETH LANGM1E 9 1 ’JUSTTCE

## (!tnirt nf ijiahi 

## fiffJi Oitrjrt nf 

## Lcxai tt 

## Ja1Ia JUDGMENT RYAN SCOTT MIRACLE, Appellant No. 05-Il -009$ I-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court ofRockwalI County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2-1 1-88). Opinion delivered by .Justice Lang—Miers. Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment ofthe trial Court IS AFFIRN’IED. Judgment entered November 5, 2012. /2 

### 1

- 

### 1 ‘ /‘

### 1 

## / f ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUS’IICL