Christopher Cordil-Cortinas v. State
13-14-00750-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- On Feb. 27, 2014, Officer Steven Lang encountered appellant Christopher Cordil‑Cortinas at a McDonald’s; Cordil‑Cortinas drove off at high speed after a brief interaction and collided with Cynthia Partida, who died from her injuries.
- The State indicted Cordil‑Cortinas for felony murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b)(3), alleging two alternative predicate felonies: (1) driving while intoxicated (DWLI) with two prior DWI convictions and (2) evading arrest with a motor vehicle.
- Cordil‑Cortinas entered an open guilty plea, executed a written plea memorandum containing a sworn judicial confession that the indictment’s allegations were true, and orally stipulated in court that Officer Lang would testify to the indictment’s allegations.
- The trial court accepted the plea and assessed life imprisonment; the defendant appealed.
- On appeal, Cordil‑Cortinas argued (1) Paragraph 2 of the indictment was jurisdictionally defective for failing to allege a culpable mental state for evading arrest, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his guilty plea because the record lacked proof of intoxication, prior DWI convictions, and knowledge that Officer Lang was an officer when fleeing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cordil‑Cortinas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paragraph 2 of the indictment was defective for failing to allege a culpable mental state for evading arrest | Indictment charged felony murder and identified an underlying felony; any other defect was waived without timely objection | Paragraph 2 failed to allege an essential culpable mental state, depriving the court of jurisdiction | Court: Indictment sufficient to vest jurisdiction; defendant waived other defects by not objecting; indictment need not plead elements of the predicate felony in felony‑murder charging instrument (affirmed) |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support the guilty plea (Article 1.15) | The defendant gave written and oral judicial confessions/stipulations that the indictment’s allegations were true, satisfying Article 1.15 | Stipulation was not independent evidence; alleged deficiencies (no proof of intoxication, priors, or knowledge of officer) meant insufficient evidence | Court: The sworn written and oral stipulations judicially confessed all elements alleged in the indictment; sufficiency requirement satisfied (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Teal v. State, 230 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (indictment suffices to vest jurisdiction if it charges an identifiable offense; non‑jurisdictional defects waived if not timely objected to)
- Hammett v. State, 578 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (felony‑murder indictment need not allege elements of the underlying felony)
- Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (a defendant’s sworn judicial confession or stipulation may supply the evidence required by Article 1.15 if it covers all elements)
- Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Article 1.15 requires sufficient evidence for guilty pleas though not proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Yandell v. State, 46 S.W.3d 357 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (applies Hammett to felony‑murder context)