Amos, Nicholas Davell, PD-0503-15

Nicholas Davell Amos waived a jury and pleaded guilty to six indictments in Dallas County: fraudulent use/possession of identifying information of an elderly person; three forgery-by-check counts (including one involving an elderly person); forgery of a financial instrument; and tampering with a governmental record.
Each indictment included two enhancement paragraphs; Amos pleaded true to the enhancements.
The trial court (291st Judicial District Court) found Amos guilty and assessed sentences: 25 years for three convictions (including the elderly-person and tampering counts) and 10 years for the remaining three forgery counts.
Amos appealed, raising two issues: (1) lack of jurisdiction because indictments were returned by a grand jury impaneled in the 195th District Court and allegedly never transferred to the 291st; and (2) insufficiency of evidence to support guilty pleas because judicial confessions were not marked as exhibits to satisfy Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.15.
The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) affirmed: it held the cases were filed in the 291st District Court (which had jurisdiction) and that admitted judicial confessions and Amos’s sworn trial testimony satisfied Article 1.15.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Amos)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Jurisdiction: whether trial court had jurisdiction where grand jury was empaneled in another district	Cases were presented to the 195th District Court grand jury and never transferred to the 291st, so 291st lacked jurisdiction and judgments are void	The indictments were filed in the 291st Court and that court therefore had jurisdiction; no transfer order was required	Court held the indictments were filed in the 291st District Court and it had jurisdiction; appellant’s jurisdictional claim overruled
Sufficiency of evidence to support guilty pleas under Art. 1.15	No evidence admitted to support pleas because judicial confessions were not marked as exhibits; thus Article 1.15 violated	Judicial confessions and stipulations of evidence were admitted without objection; Amos also testified under oath admitting the offenses, satisfying Article 1.15	Court held the signed judicial confessions and Amos’s sworn testimony embraced the elements and were sufficient to support the guilty pleas; claim overruled

Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (grand jury as arm of the court and role in indictment presentment)
Hultin v. State, 351 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Crim. App.) (indictment filing in a court with competent jurisdiction)
Dallas Cnty. Dist. Attorney v. Doe, 969 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998) (characterizing grand jury as arm of appointing court)
Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (cases returned by a grand jury are not necessarily assigned to the empaneling court)
Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App.) (judicial confession sufficient to meet Article 1.15)
Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App.) (evidence must embrace every element to support a guilty plea)
Wright v. State, 930 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996) (Article 1.15 standard for supporting evidence when defendant pleads guilty)
McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (supporting evidence need not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty plea)
Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing sufficiency of evidence standards post-plea)