### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 69 -C R

______________________________ CHRI STOPHER NEALTAYL OR, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 35729-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Chr ist op he r Ne a l Ta

y lor a pp e a ls fr om his c onvic tio n on his op e n p le a of g uil ty to t he of fe ns e of dr ivi ngwh ile int oxic a te d (D WI ), e nh anc e d by tw o pri or c on vic tio ns . Th e tr ia l c ourt a sse sse d h is punishment at seven y ear s' confine ment. Taylor contends the e vidence in his sti pulation of evidenc e is insufficient, as it fails to prove th e s p ec i fi c m an ner of his intox ication. Thus, he a rg ues, the evidenc e is leg ally

insufficient a

nd we should re verse . The State introduce d five e x hibits i n support of the plea , including a stipulation of evidence , an off ense r eport, a

nd evidenc e of Ta

y lor' s prior convic tions. The Tex as P e n a l C o d e d e f in e s th e o f

f e n s e a s b e in g " in to xic a te d w h il e o p e r a ti n g a

mo tor veh icl e in a publ ic pl ace." T EX . P EN A L C ODE A NN . § 49.04 (Ve rnon 2003). An of fense under that section is a third-de g ree felony if the State prove s that the ac tor has twice previously been c onvicted of other spe cified intoxi cation off enses. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.09(b) ( Ver non Supp. 2007). I n the context of a g uilty p l ea b ro ug ht to the trial court, the State is re quired to introduce
e vid e nc e sh ow ingthe de fe nd ant' s guil t. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 1.15 (V ernon 2005)
. Evidence is sufficient under Article 1.15 if it e mbr ace s ever y essential ele ment of the off ense c harg ed and esta blishes the defe ndant' s g uilt. Id. ; se e Sto nev . S tate , 919 S.W .2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A judicial conf

ession alone is usually

sufficie nt to satisfy

the re quirements of A rticle 1.15, but a judicial conf

ession that omits an element of the offe nse is insufficient to support a g uilty plea.3

Thus, we will af

firm a tri al co u rt ' s judgme nt under Ar ticle 1.15 of the Te x as Code of Criminal Procedure i f t he State introduce d evidenc e that embr ace d ever y essential ele ment of the offe nse cha

rg ed, which is suff

icient to establish the d ef en d an t 's g uilt. Fa

ga n v . S tate , No. 2-07-188- CR, 2008 W L820568 (Tex. App.—For t Worth Mar
. 27, 2008, no pet.) (me m. op., not desig nated f

or publ i cation). An exception to the rule re quiring introduction of such e vidence provides that, if the judicial confe ssion contains a "c atch- all" phrase that the defendant is g uilty "a s char g ed in the indictment," the conf ession is s u ff

i ci ent evidenc e to support the convic tion even wher e an e lement of the of fense has bee n omitted. Se e Sn y de r v . S tate , 6 2 9 S. W. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 2 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1982). I n the indictmen t , t h e S tate alleg ed that Ta y lor was dr iving while intoxicated by rea son of the introduction of alc oh o l o r d ru gs i n to his body . I n the stipulation, he confe ssed that the
a lle g a tio ns in t

he ind ic tme nt we re tr

ue and c or re c t, s pe c if

yingthat he ha d o pe ra

te d a mot or ve hic le while intox icated, r epeating the w ords of the indictment. I n th is a pp e a l, T ay lor

c on te nd s sp e c if

ic a lly that th e e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt b e c a

us e the re is no proof of

the manner

of, or the ag ent causing , his intoxi cation. B ut the ty pe of intoxi cant is not an ele ment of the off

ense. Gray

v . S tate , 152 S.W .3d 125, 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). [T] he definitions of " intox icated" in Section 49.01(2) ar e evide ntiary and ther efor e do not need to be a lleg ed in a c harg ing instrument. There fore , a trial court should not quash a DWI information char g ing a def endant with DWIdue to the State' s failure to a lle g e the de fi nit ion

of " int oxic a te d" that it

int e nd s to pr ov e a t tr ia l.4

Sta te v . B ar be rn e ll , No. PD-0867-07, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. L EXI S 825, at *21 (Tex. Crim. App. July 2, 20 08 ). Th e State wa s not re qu ir e d to pre se nt ev ide nc e of the ty pe of int oxic ant i n o rd e r t o meet the r equire ments of Article 1.15 of t h e T ex as C o d e of Criminal Procedur e. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 1.15. This is buttressed by the exception noted above , rec og nizi ng that the
e vid e nc e is s uf

fi c ie nt w he n a

de fe nd ant a dmi ts that he or sh e is guil ty

a s c ha rg e d in the ind ic tme nt. Fur ther, we note that the off

icer ' s repor

t, which was also introduced into e vidence , stated that Taylor smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, gla ssy ey es, and poor m otor skills, that he could not
re me mbe r wh e re he ha d b e e n o r w a s c omi ngfr om, and that he a lmo st h it a

no the r v e hic le . T his a lso le nd s so me su

pp or t to the ve rd ic t. B a se d o n th e ana ly sis a bo ve, we fi nd th a t th e e vid e nc e is
su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the ve rd ic t. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

J o s h R
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 7, 2008 Date D ecide d: J uly 10, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh