Matheson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-91-467-CR,13-91-467-CR |
| Citation | 832 S.W.2d 692 |
| Parties | Jimmy Wayne MATHESON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul G. Johnson, Angleton, for appellant.
Jim Mapel, Crim. Dist. Atty., Kelly McClendon, Asst. Dist. Atty., Angleton, for appellee.
Before FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr., J., NYE, C.J., and KENNEDY, J.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to a second-degree felony theft indictment and to a third-degree felony theft indictment. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on probation for ten years. Appellant was subsequently indicted for attempted capital murder and the State moved to adjudicate guilt in both theft cases. A jury convicted appellant of attempted capital murder and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' confinement. After a hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of probation and found him guilty in both theft cases. The trial court assessed punishment in Cause No. 19,990, the second-degree felony theft case, at twenty years' confinement and ordered that the sentence run consecutively with the twenty-five year sentence that had been assessed in the attempted capital murder case. The trial court assessed punishment in Cause No. 19,991, the third-degree felony theft case, at ten years' confinement and ordered that the sentence run concurrently with the sentence that had been assessed in the attempted capital murder case. By five points of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the voluntariness of his original plea, the language in the charging instrument, the legality of stacking the sentence onto a sentence imposed in another case, and the trial court's action of taking judicial notice of trial testimony from another case. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
By his first point of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for theft. He admits that a judicial confession is sufficient evidence to support a conviction on a plea of guilty, but argues that such a confession must be admitted in evidence in open court.
A plea of guilty or nolo contendere alone is not sufficient to support a conviction. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 1.15 (Vernon 1989) requires the State to introduce sufficient evidence to support the judgment. The supporting evidence can consist of a judicial confession alone or of oral or written stipulations of evidence containing a confession of guilt by the accused. Johnson v. State, 722 S.W.2d 417, 422 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (opinion on rehearing).
Appellant signed a judicial confession that the allegations in the theft indictments were true, stipulated to the evidence in open court, and identified himself as the charged party. The confession is sufficient evidence to support his conviction on plea of nolo contendere. We overrule appellant's first point of error.
By his second point of error, appellant complains that his original plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to admonish him that the sentence could be stacked onto a sentence received for a subsequent offense. Appellant's argument is without merit. The trial court is required to admonish a defendant of the range of punishment attached to the offense. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 26.13(a)(1) (Vernon 1989). The trial court properly admonished appellant that the second-degree felony charge carried a sentence of from two to twenty years' confinement, that the third-degree felony charge carried a sentence of from two to ten years' confinement, that the sentences could be stacked, and that he faced the possibility of a thirty-year sentence.
Appellant offers no case law to support his argument that a trial court must admonish a defendant, that if the court grants probation and he is convicted and sentenced for a subsequent offense and his probation is revoked, that the court can then stack the sentence for the original offense onto the sentence for the subsequent offense. We decline to impose such a requirement on the trial court. We overrule appellant's second point of error.
By his third point of error, appellant complains that the indictment failed to charge him with a second degree felony. He argues that second degree theft is theft of property with a value of twenty thousand dollars or more, but the indictment charged him with theft of "at least Twenty Thousand and No/100 ($20,000.00) Dollars." Appellant's argument is without merit. The phrases "with a value of X or more" and "at least X" both mean "equal to or greater than X." The indictment apprised appellant that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v. State, 07-04-0440-CR.
...to enable the Department of Criminal Justice to identify the prior conviction to which the current conviction is stacked. See Matheson v. State, 832 S.W.2d 692, 694 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.) (holding that the order and judgment taken together which stated the cause number, pri......
-
Guiterrez v. State, 01-03-01068-CR.
...no contest plea because "judicial confession standing alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 1.15."); Matheson v. State, 832 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.) (holding that judicial confession that indictment's allegations were true, defendant's ope......
-
Pitts v. State
...417, 422 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), overruled in part on other grounds by McKenna v. State, 780 S.W.2d 797 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Matheson v. State, 832 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.). When a defendant waives his right to a jury and enters a plea of guilty in a felony case......