NO. 07-06 -046 1-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y14, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ MI CH AEL S . G RI FF IN , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 13 7 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 6-41 1,5 21; HON. CECIL G. PURY EAR, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

_____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Michael S. Grif

f in cha llenges his conviction for agg rav ate d assa ult w ith a de adly w eapon. T h e c o nv icti on arose from hi s p lea of g uil ty after tr ial beg an. Thoug h the pl ea was made ag ain st the adv ic e of coun sel and after re cei v ing the appropr iat e j udi ci al admoni shment s, appel lan t now cont ends that he was deni ed due proces s w hen t he tr ial cour t t hereafter ins tr uct ed th e j ur y to find hi m g uil ty. S o too doeshe a ll eg e tha t t heA p p e l l a n t h a d p re v i o u s l yw a i v e d h i s ri g h t t o h a v e th e ju ry d e c i d e p u n i s h m e n t. 1 2 evidence w as insuf

f icient to f ind him guilty base d on the ch arge to t he jury . W e overrule the i ss ues and affirm the j udg ment. Both of the i ss ues ra is ed by appell ant resul t from the p ro cedure us ed by the tr ial cour t after appel lan t c hang ed his p le a . H e i nit ial ly pl ed notg uil ty

to ass aul ti ng hi s w ife. How ever, af

ter she te stif ied to the assa ult du ring the g uilt pha s e o f the pro ceed ings, appel lan t i nformed t he c our t t hat h e w is hed t o pl ead g uil ty . The Stat e refused to waive a jury trial though t h e re was no longer any nee d to pro ceed w ith a jury . Giv en th is 1 pred icam ent , the co urt informe d the m tha t the jury would be instruct ed to return a verdict of gu il ty . Nei ther

par ty obj ect ed to the procedu re or the charg e, an d the cour t s o i nst ru cte d the j ur y . The tr ial cour

t then admoni shed appel lan t asto hisr ig hts , and appel lan t ent ered a g uil ty pl ea and jud ic ial ly

co nfessed to t he al leg ati ons in the i ndi ctmenti n open cour t. As ex pect ed, t he j ur

y found hi m g uil ty . App ellantnow question s the pro cedu re u t il ized by the trial court. It pu rported ly den ied him due process be cause the jury was de nied t h e o ppo rtunity to indep end ent ly deter mine hisg uil t. As ide from t he fact that appel lan t i nv ite d t h at ab out w hic h he compl ain s and then w it hhel d objecti on, w e note that once an appel lan t pleadsg uil ty , t he proceed ing bec omes u nit ar y i n nat ure. Car

roll v . St ate , 9 7 5 S . W . 2 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 1 -3 2 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1998) . And, si nce “t here remainsno i ss ue of g uil t t o be deter mined, i t i s p ro per for th e tr ial j udg e in his ch ar geto ins tr uctthe jur

y to re tur n a verdict of gu ilt y” a n d then charg e only on p u n ish ment. Hol lan d v . St ate , 761 S.W .2d 3 07, 3 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1988) . Und er

the sc enar io before u s, there was no need t o c h a rg e on puni shment3

becau se a p p e ll ant o pted to ha v e the tr ial co urt dec ide thati ss ue. So, in effect , t he tr ial cour t di d tha t w hic h has been recog niz ed asco rrect , i. e. i nst ru ct the j ur y to re tur n a g uil ty v erdict. As for th e a rgu m ent t hat t he ev ide nce did not suppo rtthe conv icti on, a ppel lan t judicially confessed (in open court) to the allegations c o n t a in e d in the ind ictme nt. T his confess ion ex press ly

encompass ed not only the cr ime of ag g ra v ated ass aul t butal so the fact th at he us ed a deadl y weapon d ur ing the ordeal . Thus, the ve rd ictf ind s more tha n ample ev ide nti ar

y su ppor t. Appel lan t’ s i ss ues are ov er ru led , and the jud g ment i s a ff ir med.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.