Emanuel McLemore v. State, 05-15-01246-CR

Emanuel McLemore pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery (F14-58539-Q) and robbery (F14-58540-Q); punishment assessed by the court at 10 years confinement for each, to run concurrently.
Indictments: aggravated robbery alleged theft plus threat and use/exhibition of a knife; robbery (reduced from a firearm allegation) involved striking a clerk with what proved to be a BB gun.
Appellant signed judicial confessions in both cases admitting he committed the offenses “exactly as alleged in the indictment.”
At the punishment hearing months later, McLemore denied stabbing the aggravated-robbery victim and said he punched him; he admitted using a BB gun to strike the store clerk and generally accepted responsibility for both offenses.
Victim testimony: Gallegos testified he was stabbed three times (penknife-like) and punched; store clerk Melkamu testified he was struck in the head with what he believed was a shotgun but was a BB gun.
McLemore did not seek to withdraw his pleas; the trial court accepted the pleas and found the evidence sufficient under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.15.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether article 1.15 factual basis supports guilty plea to aggravated robbery (deadly-weapon/knife)	State: Judicial confession and victim testimony supply every element, including use/exhibition of a deadly weapon	McLemore: At punishment he denied stabbing or possessing a knife; confession inconsistent with his later statements	Court: Judicial confession that tracked indictment plus victim testimony furnished sufficient evidence under art. 1.15; plea voluntary—issue overruled
2. Whether robbery conviction must be reversed if aggravated-robbery conviction is reversed (intertwined cases)	State: Robbery plea and confession independently supported by evidence (BB gun assault on clerk)	McLemore: If aggravated-robbery is reversed/remanded, robbery should also be reversed as inextricably intertwined	Court: Robbery plea independently supported by judicial confession and clerk's testimony; issue overruled

Wright v. State, 930 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996) (defendant waiving jury and pleading guilty requires only sufficient evidence to support plea)
McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (art. 1.15 evidence need not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (opinion on reh’g) (standards for accepting guilty pleas and factual bases)
Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (supporting evidence must embrace every element of charged offense)
Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (guilty plea accompanied by strong factual basis satisfies due process even when defendant maintains innocence)
Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (judicial confession alone can sustain conviction if it embraces every element)
Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (opinion on reh’g) (judicial confession sufficiency)
Ross v. State, 931 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996) (judicial confession tracked indictment supports plea)
Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (en banc) (court need not withdraw guilty plea when evidence later raises questions; court must consider evidence)
Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court must decide whether guilty plea is supported by evidence, a lesser included offense, or not guilty)

Decision: Affirmed in both appeals.