NO. 07-05-0247-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B JANUARY 18, 2006

______________________________ DENNIS W

AYNE OVE RTON, Appellant
v. THE STA

TE OF TEX

AS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 355 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY; NO. 9478; HON. RALPH H. WALTON, JR., PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Dennis Wayne Overton (appellant) appeals his convi c tion for aggravated sexual assaultof a chi ld. Viathree is sues, he challen ges the s ufficien cy of the evidence to suppo rt his conviction and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. We overrule each and affirm the judgment. Issues One and Two – Sufficiency of the Evide nce Appellant

questions the legal and factual sufficiencyof the evidence supporting his conviction through his first two issues. He posits that the live testimony received by the trial court was not enough to establish his guilt. Yet, in additio n to that te stimony, t he trial court2

also had before it appellant’s plea of guilty as well as his judicial confession. And, through the latter he admitted that he read the indictment and “committed each and every allegation it contai ns . . . .” A judicial confession admitting the veracity o f t he allegations in an indictment suffices to establi sh guilt

. Dinnery v. State , 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (op. on reh'g) (holding that a judicial co nfession alone is sufficie nt to supp ort a guilty plea). Furthermore, appellant says nothing of his judicia l confession in proffering his argument t o us. Th is omission is rather interesting since the trial court ex pressly admonished him that the confession alone would suf fice to prove guilt, and appellant
res p onded that he understood the admonition. Given the written judici al confession executed by appellant, we reject his first two issues. Issue Three – Effectiveness of Counsel In his last issue, appellant contends

that histrial co unsel wa s ineffec tive. This is so because 1) counsel purported l y failed to fully disclose and exp lain the factual evidence againsthim and 2) his plea was inv oluntary. Regardin g the form er, appel lant cite s us to
no evidence of record supporting the allegation. Instead, the pass age to wh ich he d oes cite discloses that he and his trial attorney spoke at length r egarding his ple a of guil ty and the concomitant loss of rig hts. Furthermore, our own review of the record failed to uncover evidence of the purported deficiency. Thus, the burden imposed o n appellant by such
cases as Bone v. S tate , 77 S.W.3 d 828, 83 3 (Tex. C rim. App. 2002) has not been satisfied with regard to this allegation. Concerning the other groun d, the reco rd indicates that the trial court appointed a psychologistto assist appellant in the preparation, evaluatio n, and pres entation of a3

defense. However, evidence of the expert’s finding s was not presented to the trial co urt. T his evin ced unrea sonableconduct on the pa rt of trial counsel , accordi ng to app ellant, because the latter supposedly “was confused about the consequences of his ple a.” Yet, since there was no motion for new trial filed, appe llant prese nted us with nothing that suggeststhe exp ertwould have testified favorably. Nor does therecord illustrate why trial counsel opted no t to present the findings of the expert, assuming the expert e ven met w ith appella nt or hiscounsel and deve loped fi ndings. As for the evidence of confusion, appel lant c ites us to a passage wherein 1) he represented that no one induced his plea through promises and that he was guilty, and 2) his counsel explained how appel lant’s “mind ha[d] been fix ed on thi s guilty

plea.” Yet, nowhere in that e xchangedoes the re appea r eviden ce of “con fusion,” mental or otherwise, necessitating any type of hearing on appellant’s abi lity to understand his conduct or the consequences of his plea. Instead, it sugge sts that appellant and his counsel discussed appellant’s dilemma at length. This, co upled wi th the tri al court’ s admoni tions toappellant aboutthe effect of his plea, obligates us to again conclude that appellant failed to carry the burden imposed by Bone

. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.