Leonard, James Gordon
WR-83,045-02
| Tex. App. | May 14, 2015Background
- Amicus letter filed by Gary L. Leonard (applicant's brother and attorney) urging the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant sua sponte rehearing of James Gordon Leonard’s habeas applications in three consolidated matters.
- At the plea hearing the State rested without presenting any evidence supporting the elements of the charged offenses; the trial court accepted the plea and deferred adjudication based on a portion of an admonishments form labeled "judicial confession."
- The admonishment language cited by the trial court merely stated the defendant admitted he was the person named and "committed the offense as charged," but was not introduced into evidence by either party.
- Amicus contends a guilty plea does not substitute for evidentiary support at a bench plea; Texas precedent requires the State to introduce evidence establishing every essential element before a judge may adjudicate guilt or defer adjudication when a defendant pleads guilty.
- Because the State presented no evidence, Amicus argues the trial court was without authority to defer adjudication and place Leonard on community supervision; that order (and subsequent orders, including detention) is therefore void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bench adjudication or deferral of adjudication may stand when the State offers no evidentiary support for the elements of the charged offenses | Leonard: Trial court lacked authority because the State presented no evidence; plea is not evidence and court should have entered not guilty | State: (Not presented in letter; implicit position is that court may rely on plea/admonishments) | Not decided — Amicus requests sua sponte rehearing and briefing to resolve this |
| Whether the portion of the admonishments form labeled a "judicial confession" can substitute for evidence when not admitted into evidence | Leonard: The admonishment does not establish the truth of the charging instrument or elements of the offense; it is not competent evidence of guilt | State: (Not in record) | Not decided — relief requested |
| Whether orders entered pursuant to a void adjudication (deferred adjudication and community supervision) are void and unenforceable | Leonard: A void order is a nullity; all derivative orders (including detention) are void and must be vacated | State: (Not in record) | Not decided — relief requested |
| Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals should grant sua sponte rehearing under Texas R. App. P. 79.2(d) | Leonard: Issues affect statewide criminal jurisprudence and warrant Court-initiated rehearing and additional briefing; Amicus offers to file brief | State: (Not in record) | Not decided — motion for sua sponte rehearing requested |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (bench plea requires evidence to support judgment)
- Burks v. State, 165 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. 1942) (State must show guilt before conviction; judge lacks authority absent evidence)
- Garza v. State, 878 S.W.2d 213 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994) (plea of guilty is not evidence)
- Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (State must introduce evidence embracing every essential element)
- Slaughter v. Qualls, 162 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1942) (void order is a nullity)