Court Opinion

ID: 9683584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:32:28.322514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.907770
License: Public Domain

ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached. In connection with appellant’s contention that the record does not reflect sufficient evidence to support his guilty pleas since the trial court did not formally announce it was admitting into evidence the stipulations including his judicial confessions, I call attention to the following portion of the transcription of the court reporter’s notes *80following the State’s offer of the stipulations into evidence:
“THE COURT: Counsel, do you agree with the stipulations offered in all three of these cases ? 1
“MR. HENKEL (defense counsel): Yes, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Do you also, Mr. Kissinger ?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.”
Thereafter, the defense counsel announced he had no evidence to offer.
If the trial judge had formally announced that stipulations were being admitted into evidence, all question would have been removed. However, since the stipulations were the only evidence offered, and the court, the State and the appellant treated the same as being admitted and the court subsequently stated in open court his judgments were based on the “evidence offered” to which there was no objection, I cannot conclude that absence of a formal admission under the circumstances of the instant case calls for reversal.

. The two guilty pleas were heard together and at the same time as the revocation of pro-flation discussed in Kissinger v. State, 501 S. W.2d 80 (delivered November 14, 1973).