Jose Juan Cardenas v. State
403 S.W.3d 377
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Cardenas pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; the indictment alleged theft, intent to obtain control, threatening the victim, and use of a firearm.
- He executed a Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession, admitting the acts and elements.
- A judicial confession in the stipulation mirrored the indictment’s elements and was signed by Cardenas, counsel, and the prosecutor.
- The trial court found guilt and sentenced Cardenas to 25 years, with credit for 118 days served; costs of $294 were assessed.
- Cardenas appealed asserting the evidence did not support the conviction or the court costs; the appellate court affirmed the judgment on both issues.
- The court allowed supplementation of the appellate record with a bill of costs to review the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction | Cardenas contends no evidence beyond the guilty plea supports the conviction | State argues the judicial confession plus stipulation prove all elements | Evidence sufficient; judicial confession covers all elements |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support court costs | Record lacked a bill of costs; costs insufficiently supported | Record supplemented; costs itemized and authorized by statute/rule | Costs supported; supplementation proper; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (judicial confession suffices to prove all elements when valid)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency of evidence for costs may be appealed directly)
- Johnson v. State, 389 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (supplementation of records possible under art. 103.006/Rule 34.5; cost issues on appeal)
- Barker CATV Const., Inc. v. Ampro, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (discussion of supplementation and procedural rights; not controlling here)
- Roventini v. Ocular Sciences, Inc., 111 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (addressed supplemental record concepts; context applicable)
- Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (judgment form requirements; costs referenced in judgment form)