Court Opinion

ID: 9776747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:43:42.298768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:42.218609
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
The majority of the court has overruled the appellant’s motion for rehearing without written opinion. I am convinced we were in error on original submission. I now dissent.
I adopt the following portion of the proposed opinion of Commissioner Dally prepared for the court after oral argument on the motion for rehearing as my opinion in this cause:
“By brief and in oral argument on the motion for rehearing the appellant insists that the facts of this case are indistinguishable from those in Rangel v. State, [Tex.Cr.App.] 464 S.W.2d 858, and that to be consistent with the holding in Elder v. State, [Tex.Cr.App.] 462 S.W.2d 6, this case would also require reversal.
“It has been the consistent and unanimous holding of this court that Article 1.15, V.A.C.C.P., in effect at the time this plea of not guilty was accepted, required that the stipulated testimony supporting the judgment following a plea of guilty or not guilty before the court be in writing prior to the time it is introduced.1 Rangel v. State, supra and Elder v. State, supra.
“In addition to the cases cited by the appellant other cases which have so held are Elliott v. State, [Tex.Cr.App.] 466 S.W.2d 562; Drain v. State, [Tex.Cr.App.] 465 S.W.2d 939 and Beaty v. State, [Tex.Cr.App.] 466 S.W.2d 284.
“In Elliott v. State, supra, Judge Roberts, writing for the court, wrote:
“ ‘The record reflects that the defendant was duly admonished by the court of the consequences of his plea and he persisted in said plea and signed a written agreement to stipulate the evidence in said cause. Oral stipulations were dictated into the record by the assistant district attorney. When all of said stipulations were so dictated the appellant’s attorney and the appellant in open court both agreed to the stipulated testimony.
“ ‘The stipulations, had they been reduced to writing and introduced in*927to evidence in said cause, would have been sufficient under Art. 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. However, since said stipulations are oral, they cannot be considered as evidence to support the plea of guilty. Drain v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 465 S.W.2d 939 (dated April 20, 1971); Elder v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 6; Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 376; Rangel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 858 (dated March 31, 1971).
“ ‘The record does not reflect that the defendant made a judicial confession either written or oral. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the plea of guilty.’
“In Rangel v. State, supra, it was said:
“ ‘The requirements of Article 1.15, supra, relating to stipulated testimony, are two-fold. First, the defendant must consent in writing and in open court to waive the appearance, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses. This was fully complied with in the case at bar.
“ ‘Second, the defendant must consent, in writing, to the introduction of testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses and other documentary evidence and such consent and evidence must be filed with the papers of the cause. According to Elder v. State, supra, any stipulated testimony must be reduced to writing, consented to by the defendant, and approved by the court prior to the time it is introduced into evidence.
“ ‘The pre-trial testimony was not reduced to writing at the time it was introduced and cannot be considered.’
“In this case the stipulation referring to the evidence received at a prior trial was that ‘ . . .if required or requested said transcript is available for reproduction.’ The evidence heard on the former trial was not reduced to writing, introduced into evidence, and 'filed in the papers of the cause as required by the authorities already cited.
“There is no reason why the appellant in this case should, under the same circumstances, be treated in a different manner than those in the cases cited.”
I respectfully dissent.

. The plea is immaterial as far as the statutory requirements then in effect were concerned. Beaty v. State, 466 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).