Christopher Ray Weatherspoon v. State
03-15-00237-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Christopher Ray Weatherspoon was indicted (two-count indictment) for state‑jail felony theft (property valued $1,500–$20,000).
- On January 8, 2015 Weatherspoon entered a guilty plea in open court; the plea colloquy did not place him under oath and the court accepted the plea.
- The State relied on a written “Written Plea Agreement / Judicial Confession” in the court file; that document contains an "I swear" clause but contains no jurat and was not sworn before a clerk.
- At the plea hearing the State asked the court to take judicial notice of the plea papers; no other evidence or stipulation was presented at the plea proceeding.
- At the subsequent sentencing hearing the appellant testified under oath and described facts that the State may later argue supply the missing elements; appellant contends that such later testimony cannot cure Article 1.15 defects and, even if it could, it does not establish ownership, lack of consent, value, or intent elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Weatherspoon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court erred in accepting the guilty plea because evidence at plea proceeding did not satisfy Art. 1.15 | The State relied on the plea papers (and the court’s judicial‑notice of the file) as sufficient evidence to support the guilty plea. | Weatherspoon argues the plea papers were unsworn, the court did not place him under oath, no stipulation or sworn written confession was introduced at plea, and judicial notice of the papers cannot supply substantive proof under Art. 1.15. | Trial court accepted plea; appellate ruling pending (appellant seeks reversal). |
| 2) If sentencing testimony can cure Art. 1.15 deficiencies, whether that testimony establishes every element of theft | The State may contend that sworn sentencing testimony and the record as a whole supply the missing elements. | Weatherspoon contends (alternatively) that sentencing testimony cannot be used to supply Article 1.15 proof; and even if it can, his sworn sentencing statements do not admit ownership, lack of owner consent, specific value, or contemporaneous intent to deprive. | Trial court sentenced; appellate ruling pending (appellant seeks reversal or remand). |
| 3) Whether the written judgment incorrectly states the plea was pursuant to a plea bargain | N/A (no plea bargain asserted by appellant) | Weatherspoon argues the judgment incorrectly recites terms of a plea bargain when he entered an open plea and asks the judgment be corrected. | Trial court entered judgment reflecting a plea bargain; appellate correction requested, decision pending. |
| 4) Whether judicial notice of plea paperwork can substitute for Article 1.15 evidence | State asked court to take judicial notice of file contents including plea papers. | Weatherspoon argues judicial notice is limited to adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable dispute and cannot be used to prove the truth of factual admissions in pleadings. | Trial court took judicial notice of the file; appellate resolution pending. |
Key Cases Cited
- Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (articulates permissible methods to supply evidence under Art. 1.15 and holds un-sworn guilty plea is not independent evidence of guilt)
- Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (plea must be supported by evidence embracing every essential element)
- Soto v. State, 456 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (written judicial confession must be sworn to be sufficient Art. 1.15 evidence)
- Rodriguez v. State, 442 S.W.2d 376 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) (stated statutory requirements for substituted/stipulated testimony under predecessor to Art. 1.15)
- Sexton v. State, 476 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (defendant’s sworn testimony can constitute a judicial confession)
- Potts v. State, 571 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (examples of written judicial confessions that supply elements)
- Knight v. State, 481 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (judicial admission in writing sufficient to support conviction)
- Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (theft offense elements include identification of owner)
- McClain v. State, 730 S.W.2d 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (Article 1.15 is mandatory; failure to meet statutory proof is not waived by lack of objection)