Daw v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-99-196-CR,10-99-196-CR |
| Citation | 17 S.W.3d 330 |
| Parties | (Tex.App.-Waco 2000) WILLIAM ARTHUR DAW, JR., Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Before Chief Justice Davis Justice Vance and Justice Gray
William Arthur Daw, Jr. pleaded guilty to twenty-three counts of burglary of a habitation without the benefit of a plea recommendation from the State. See Act of May 29, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, sec. 30.02(a)(1), (3), 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3633 (amended 1999) (current version at Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), (3) (Vernon Supp. 2000)). On counts one through twenty-two, the court sentenced Daw to ten years' imprisonment. On count twenty-three, the court likewise sentenced Daw to ten years' imprisonment but suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on community supervision for a period of ten years. Daw claims in a single issue that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea without complying with article 1.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2000).
According to the reporter's record, Daw pleaded guilty in open court on March 22, 1999. After Daw entered his plea, the court showed him a document entitled a "Guilty Plea Memorandum." The court referred to this document as "State's Exhibit No. 1." The clerk's record contains such a document, and each page of this document bears the notation "State's Exhibit 1" in the bottom-right margin. The court asked him whether his signature appears on the document "above where it says 'Defendant.'" Daw responded in the affirmative. The court asked him whether he:
* had read and understood the paragraph immediately preceding each of his fifteen signatures on the memorandum;
* had an opportunity to consult with counsel concerning any questions he may have had about the information contained in the memorandum; and
* understood that by signing the memorandum he was "waiving certain statutory and constitutional rights" including the right to jury trial.
Daw answered each of these questions affirmatively.
Daw orally informed the court that he wished to testify and was voluntarily waiving his right to remain silent. Daw's counsel called him to the stand "and tender[ed] him to [the prosecutor] for cross-examination." Daw testified that he is guilty of the twenty-three counts of burglary alleged in the indictment. He further stated that he gave a written statement to a sheriff's deputy in which he described his participation in the offenses. He agreed that this statement is "true and correct as to [his] participation" in the offenses. The court accepted Daw's guilty plea, found him guilty as charged, and rescheduled the matter for a punishment hearing the next day.
During the punishment hearing, the State introduced the testimony of nine witnesses and offered four exhibits in evidence. State's exhibit number one offered at punishment is Daw's written confession.1 Daw and his mother testified for the defense. He again affirmed the veracity of his confession. He also testified about his involvement in the burglaries. On cross-examination, he re-affirmed that he is guilty of the burglaries. The court sentenced him as indicated above.
Daw contends in his sole issue that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea when the State did not formally offer in evidence the written waiver and stipulation of evidence required by article 1.15. The State relies on the so-called Helms rule to argue that Daw has waived the right to complain about compliance with article 1.15 because noncompliance with the statute would be a nonjurisdictional error which arose prior to entry of his guilty plea. See Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).
According to the Helms rule, a voluntary guilty plea made without a plea recommendation conclusively establishes the guilt of the defendant and waives all nonjurisdictional errors which may have occurred before entry of the guilty plea. Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Helms, 484 S.W.2d at 927. The Helms rule does not apply to errors "occurring at or after entry of [the] plea." Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).2
In this case, Daw questions whether the State properly presented the stipulation of evidence required by article 1.15. This constitutes an allegation of error at the time of the entry of the guilty plea. Thus, the Helms rule does not bar Daw from asserting his complaint on appeal. See id.
Article 1.15 requires the State "to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15.
The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in such case consents in writing, in open court, to waive the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses, and further consents either to an oral stipulation of the evidence and testimony or to the introduction of testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and any other documentary evidence in support of the judgment of the court. Such waiver and consent must be approved by the court in writing, and be filed in the file of the papers of the cause.
Daw's "Guilty Plea Memorandum" contains a section entitled "Stipulation of Evidence and Waiver of Confrontation" which constitutes an almost verbatim waiver of the rights expressed in this section of article 1.15. Although the trial court did not ask Daw whether he understood that he was waiving these particular rights, the court did ask whether he understood that he was "waiving certain statutory and constitutional rights." Thus, we conclude that Daw's memorandum constitutes a sufficient written waiver of "the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses" as required by article 1.15.
Daw consented to a stipulation of evidence consistent with article 1.15. Such a stipulation "includes inter alia agreements as to what particular evidence or testimony would be, if presented in full in open court." Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (quoting Robinson v. State, 739 S.W.2d 795, 800 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (per curiam)).
Although the record contains Daw's consent to a stipulation, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. State
...State, 24 S.W.3d 565, 568 (Tex. App.–Waco 2000), pet. granted by Ex parte McCain, 67 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting Daw v. State, 17 S.W.3d 330, 331 (Tex. App.–Waco 2000, no pet.) ). Due to our ruling in this case, we need not address whether Carson's claims fall within the Youn......
-
Guerrero v. State
...trial (unless the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect or the trial court granted permission to appeal). Id.; see also Daw v. State, 17 S.W.3d 330, 333 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no Because Guerrero pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea recommendation, Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.......
-
Ybarra v. State
...into the record" and we may consider it "in deciding whether the State met its evidentiary burden under article 1.15." Daw v. State, 17 S.W.3d 330, 333 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.) (citing Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex.Crim. It is well-settled that a judicial confession, standin......
-
Ex parte Chad Parker
... ... There is no evidence in the record of how long Parker has resided in Navarro County ... The trial court concluded that the nature of the offense, the possible consequences of a conviction, and Parker's history of absenting himself from the State and avoiding contact with investigators required a substantial bail amount. The trial court also concluded that bail in the amount of $50,000 was not unreasonable under the circumstances ... Conclusion ... After considering the record and the necessary factors, the ... ...