Court Opinion

ID: 9653116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:39:01.314395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:56.437371
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This is a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.
The application was filed originally in the convicting court as required by Article 11.-07, supra. That court conducted an eviden-tiary hearing on the pro se application advancing five “legal claims.” At the hearing applicant was represented by counsel. At such hearing appellant abandoned “claims” 1, 2, 4 and 5 and decided to proceed on part of “claim” No. 3, which originally read:
“Legal Claim No. 3
“Petitioner further contends that He did not sign a waiver of wrights (sic), and that said signature is not his, but that it was forged by someone else, but not by Petitioner. This violates Petitioner’s rights under the Texas statute and constitutional rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 14th and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution and laws governing therein. Said waiver was not signed by the State Prosecuting Attorney nor by the State trial Judge." (Emphasis supplied.)
*686After interrogation applicant agreed to abandon all of “Claim No. 3” except the last sentence thereof.
There was introduced at the hearing an instrument entitled “Defendant’s Written Stipulations and Waivers,” apparently used in Cause No. 7562 in the 12th Judicial District Court on December 15, 1981 when applicant entered a plea of guilty to an indictment charging burglary of a building. The instrument was obviously designed as one “catch all” type of form for guilty pleas in felony cases. In one part it relates to waiver of trial by jury, another part relates to the waiver of the ten days’ preparation period, matters pertaining to motions for new trial, waiver of rights and agreement to stipulate evidence, etc. As true of most such instruments, it leaves much to be desired as to clarity and proper form. The instrument was not signed by the trial court giving his approval as to waivers and stipulations, and was not signed by the attorney for the State showing his consent to the waiver of trial by jury by the applicant. The instrument, however, was signed by the applicant and his attorney.
At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court made no findings of facts or conclusions of law. After a number of inquiries by the staff of this Court, the record was finally forwarded to this Court. Thereafter the cause was ordered filed and set. This may well have been improvident action on the part of this Court in light of the record as I now view the proceeding before us.
I agree with the majority’s disposition of the claim on collateral attack concerning the failure of the prosecutor to sign the jury waiver as required by Article 1.13, V.A.C.C.P. See Ex parte Collier, 614 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).
I have more difficulty with the majority’s disposition of the claim concerning the failure of the trial judge to approve the waiver of rights and agreement to stipulate evidence as required by Article 1.15, V.A.C. C.P.
The majority seems willing to use the Collier rule, applying to collateral attacks upon the failure of the prosecutor to consent in writing to the jury waiver as required by Article 1.13, supra, and extend it to apply to habeas corpus attacks based upon a trial judge’s failure to comply with Article 1.15, supra. I cannot agree and dissent in this regard because in essence the attack here is upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
The rationale behind Article 1.13 and Article 1.15 is different. Article 1.13 was designed in part to give the State a say in whether a trial by jury is to be waived, otherwise the State would be forced into a bench trial merely because the defendant decided to waive trial by jury. Article 1.15 deals, inter alia, with the long-time requirement that there must be evidence to support the plea of the defendant. It provides that if the evidence is to be stipulated certain procedure must be followed or else the stipulated evidence cannot be considered as evidence as required by the mandatory statute. Clark v. State, 657 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Thus, appellant’s contention regarding Article 1.15 must necessarily involve the sufficiency of the evidence. If this Court on collateral attack decided that the failure of the trial court to approve in writing the waivers and the agreement to stipulate evidence was fundamental error, it would then have to look to see if there was other evidence, independent of the “stipulated” evidence, to support the judgment before relief could be granted. Therefore, in my opinion we are here confronted with a sufficiency of evidence question which requires a review of our cases dealing with Article 1.15, V.A.C.C.P.
Compliance with Article 1.15, supra, has long been held mandatory in order for the stipulation to be considered as evidence. Elder v. State, 462 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Rangel v. State, 464 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Hughes v. State, 533 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
In Clark v. State, 657 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), this Court wrote:
*687“This court has consistently held that compliance with this statute is mandatory, in the trial before the court, regardless of the plea, for a stipulation to be considered evidence. Young v. State, 648 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Valdez v. State, 555 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).” See also Ellard v. State, 650 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Green v. State, 666 S.W.2d 291 (Tex.App. [14th Dist.] 1984); Lewis v. State, 647 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.App. [3rd Dist.] 1983).
Thus, when the applicant makes a collateral attack by habeas corpus application upon his conviction for failure of the trial judge to approve in writing the waivers and agreement to stipulate evidence as required by Article 1.15, supra, he is in essence making a collateral attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.
It is well established that a habeas corpus proceeding may not be used to collaterally attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. Ex parte Caldwell, 383 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Ex parte Taylor, 480 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Ex parte Ashcraft, 565 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte Smith, 571 S.W.2d 22 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte Dantzler, 571 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte Dunn, 571 S.W.2d 928 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). See also Ex parte Easter, 615 S.W.2d 719, cert. den. Easter v. Texas, 454 U.S. 943, 102 S.Ct. 481, 70 L.Ed.2d 252.
In Ex parte Lyles, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 145, 323 S.W.2d 950 (1959), this Court stated:
“We have concluded, however, that the question presented constitutes an attack upon the judgment based upon the insufficiency of the evidence, which can never be raised collaterally by writ of habeas corpus but must be raised on appeal.” See also Ex parte Wingfield, [162 Tex. Cr.R. 112] 282 S.W.2d 219, 220 (Tex.Cr.App.1955); Ex parte Sonka, 323 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Cr.App.1959).
As made clear, however, in Lyles, there is a distinction on collateral attack between a claim of insufficient evidence and a claim of no evidence at all. The latter may be raised on collateral attack. See Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). See also discussion in Ex parte Dantzler, supra.
In Ex parte Coleman, 599 S.W.2d 305, 307 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), the Court wrote:
“Where there has been no evidence upon which to base a conviction, a violation of due process has occurred and the conviction may be attacked collaterally in a habeas corpus proceeding.”
If it be applicant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to support his burglary conviction, then his contention cannot be entertained in this habeas corpus proceeding. If it is applicant’s contention that without the trial judge’s written approval of the waiver and consent to stipulate there is no evidence, I would conclude that applicant has not sustained his burden of proof.
In a post-conviction habeas corpus action, the applicant has the burden of proof. Ex parte Sanders, 588 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte McWilliams, supra. There is no showing in this record that the only evidence offered on his plea of guilty was the stipulated evidence not approved in writing by the trial judge.1 Other evidence alone may be sufficient to support his guilty plea.2 See Ex parte Reed, 610 S.W.2d 495, 499 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). In fact, a judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction on a guilty plea and to satisfy the requirements of Article 1.15, supra. Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). I do not find from the habeas corpus application or evidence that applicant has attempted to raise any possible claim under Jackson v. *688Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
I would deny the relief requested and concur in the result but on different grounds insofar as the Article 1.15 claim is concerned.

. There is no transcription of the court reporter’s notes from the guilty plea hearing, no testimony as to what evidence was offered, and no judgment or sentence entered in the burglary case.

. The trial judge conducting the evidentiary hearing speculated there might well have been other evidence. He was not the same trial judge who presided at the guilty plea hearing.