Case Information
*0 FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 4/2/2015 9:49:42 AM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 13-14-00297-CR THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/2/2015 9:49:42 AM DORIAN RAMIREZ CLERK CAUSE NO. 13-14-00297-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG, TEXAS ALEJANDRO BARRIENTES, Appellant
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee. On appeal from the 107th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Number 2013-DCR-00657-A STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF Luis V. Saenz Cameron County District Attorney ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
René B. González Assistant District Attorney 964 East Harrison Street, 4th Floor Brownsville, Texas 78520 Phone: (956) 544-0849 Fax:(956) 544-0869 Attorneys for the State of Texas *2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Index of Authorities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Salutation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Summary of the Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Argument and Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
State’s Response to Appellant’s Issues One through Four.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Certificate of Service.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
-i- *3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases
Adam v. State ,
490 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Armitage v. State ,
637 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Dinnery v. State ,
592 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (op. on reh’g). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 Edwards v. State ,
835 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Evers v. State ,
576 S.W.2d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Fox v. State ,
657 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.).. . . . . . . . 4 Jones v. State ,
373 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.).. . . . . . . . 3 Menefee v. State ,
287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3 Menefee v. State ,
No. 12–07–00001–CR, 2010 WL 3247816 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2010, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Staggs v. State ,
314 S.W.3d 155 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . 3 Stewart v. State ,
12 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . 5 -ii-
Statutes
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.15.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
-iii- *5 CAUSE NO. 13-14-00297-CR ____________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG, TEXAS ____________________________________ ALEJANDRO BARRIENTES, Appellant v.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ____________________________________ STATE’S APPELLATE BRIEF ____________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW , Appellee, the STATE OF TEXAS , by and through the Cameron County District Attorney, the Honorable Luis V. Saenz, and, pursuant to
Rule 38.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, files this, its Appellate Brief in
the above-styled and -numbered cause of action, and in support thereof, would show
this Honorable Court as follows:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Appellant raises four issues on appeal. Appellant generally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his plea of guilty and establish his guilt as to
the various elements of the offenses charged. The State responds by asserting that the
evidence herein is sufficient to establish the guilt of Appellant.
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES State’s Response to Appellant’s First, Second, Third and Fourth Issues
In four issues, Appellant generally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his plea of guilty and establish his guilt as to the various elements of the
offenses charged. The State responds by asserting that the evidence herein is
sufficient to establish the guilt of Appellant.
Although the United States Constitution does not require substantiation of a guilty plea in state court, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 1.15 does provide
this additional procedural safeguard. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.15; Menefee v.
State , 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Under this article, a court may not
enter a conviction in a felony case based on a guilty plea unless evidence is presented
establishing guilt in addition to and independent of the plea. Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
art. 1.15; Menefee , 287 S.W.3d at 13–14. The evidence does not have to establish the
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but must embrace every element of the
offense charged. Staggs v. State , 314 S.W.3d 155, 159 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st
Dist.] 2010, no pet.).
Evidence substantiating a guilty plea can take several possible forms. Menefee ,
287 S.W.3d at 13. Article 1.15 itself states that a defendant may consent to the
presentation of evidence either by oral testimony or in written form, or to an oral or
written stipulation of what the evidence would be, without necessarily admitting to
its veracity or accuracy. Id . Additionally, courts have recognized that a defendant
may enter a sworn written confession, or may testify under oath in open court,
admitting his or her culpability or at least acknowledging generally that the
allegations against him or her are in fact true and correct. Id . A deficiency in one
form of proof may be compensated for by other competent evidence in the record.
Id . at 14. Evidence adduced at a sentencing hearing may also suffice to substantiate
a guilty plea. See id . at 18–19 (remanding in part for determination of whether
evidence at sentencing hearing was sufficient); Menefee v. State , No.
12–07–00001–CR, 2010 WL 3247816, at *1, *6–7 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2010, pet.
ref’d) (not designated for publication) (finding evidence at sentencing hearing was
sufficient); Jones v. State , 373 S.W.3d 790, 792-93 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.]
2012, no pet.).
Further, a judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction on a guilty plea. Dinnery v. State , 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App.
1980) (op. on reh’g); Edwards v. State , 835 S.W.2d 660, 664 (Tex. App.--Dallas
1992, no pet.). A written affirmation of a charging instrument as true constitutes a
judicial confession. See Adam v. State , 490 S.W.2d 189, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973);
Fox v. State , 657 S.W.2d 449, 449 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.).
In the present case, Appellant was charged and pleaded guilty to the felony offenses of evading arrest and endangering a child. The evidence supporting the plea
of guilty included Appellant’s judicial confession of guilt (C.R. p. 40), the statements
of three officers who witnessed the offenses (C.R. pp. 46-50), and the testimony of
one of the officers who testified at the punishment hearing (R.R. Vol. 8, pp. 7-16).
Any of these items of evidence, alone, would be sufficient to show the guilt of
Appellant; however, when taken together, these three items of evidence
overwhelmingly demonstrate Appellant’s guilt.
Specifically, in his judicial confession, Appellant states: In addition, the Defendant, in person, under oath, together with his attorney and the attorney representing the State of Texas, further agree, consent and stipulate in writing in open court to the following: The State may introduce affidavits, written statements of witnesses and any other documentary evidence in support of any judgment that may be entered in this cause, which are marked Exhibits No. 1, through No. 2, inclusive, and made a part hereof; that such *9 stipulated evidence is true and correct; that the Defendant, is the identical person referred to in the exhibits and stipulated evidence and if the witnesses were present, sworn and testifying under oath that they would testify as set out in their written statements and would identify the Defendant as the person of whom they speak in said exhibits and stipulations; that the Defendant is the identical person named in the charging instrument in the above styled and numbered cause; that each and every allegation in said charging instrument with the offense of: Count I: Evading Arrest / with a motor vehicle (3rd degree); Count II: Endanger Child (State Jail Felony); ...
is true and correct and each act therein alleged occurred in Cameron County, Texas.
(C.R. p. 40). This judicial confession was sworn to by Appellant, and offered into
evidence. (R.R. Vol. 7, pp. 7-8). As noted above, Appellant swore under oath that
“each and every allegation” in the indictment alleging the offenses of evading arrest
and endangering a child is true and correct. Because Appellant’s judicially admits to
each and every allegation in the indictment, the evidence is therefore sufficient to
support all the allegations in the indictment, including the following allegations: that
he did not voluntarily deliver the child to an emergency care provider (issue one); that
officers were attempting lawfully to arrest Appellant (issue three); that officers were
attempting lawfully to detain Appellant (issue four); and, that the evidence was
generally sufficient to support a plea of guilty (issue two). See Dinnery , 592 S.W.2d
at 353; see also Stewart v. State , 12 S.W.3d 146, 148 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.]
2000, no pet.) (“A judicial confession alone is sufficient evidence to sustain a
conviction upon a guilty plea under article 1.15.”).
Moreover, the plea and conviction was supported by three officers’ statements (C.R. pp. 46-50), which Appellant stipulated were true and correct (C.R. p. 40). The [1]
statements set forth that officers with the Brownsville Police Department observed
Appellant commit a traffic violation (exhibition of acceleration) which was a
sufficient basis to detain and/or arrest Appellant. See Armitage v. State , 637 S.W.2d
936, 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (A police officer has the authority to stop and
temporarily detain a driver who has violated a traffic law); see also Evers v. State ,
576 S.W.2d 46, 47–49 & n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (holding that
accelerating quickly from stopped position where vehicle squealed tires and threw
mud and gravel was violation of exhibition of acceleration statute). The officers
further stated that after activating the police unit’s overhead lights and siren,
Appellant evaded detention or arrest and led the officers on a lengthy chase. (C.R.
pp. 46, 48). The officers further stated that Appellant evaded police at a high rate of
speed, disregarded traffic lights, and nearly lost control of his vehicle, all while
transporting a minor as a passenger in the vehicle. (C.R. pp. 46, 48, 50). The minor
*11 passenger stated that, while Appellant was driving erratically, he did fear for his
safety. (C.R. p. 49). The chase ended with police detaining Appellant and making
contact with the minor passenger in a parking lot (C.R. pp. 46, 48-49, 50). The fact
that the officers viewed the minor with Appellant throughout the commission of the
offense demonstrates that Appellant did not voluntarily deliver the minor to an
emergency care provider.
Finally, the record also contains that testimony of Officer April Garza, who assisted in the pursuit and arrest of Appellant. Her testimony at the sentencing
hearing supplemented her written report. Officer Garza’s testimony made clear that
Appellant evaded arrest or detention in a motor vehicle, and that Appellant drove
dangerously while a minor passenger was present in his vehicle. (R.R. Vol. 8, pp. 7-
16).
Accordingly, the evidence presented by the State at the time of Appellant’s pleas of guilty was sufficient to support the plea and the finding of guilt. Therefore,
Appellant’s four issues should be overruled.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , the State of Texas prays that this Court will overrule Appellant’s issues on appeal, and affirm both the judgment
of conviction and the sentence herein.
Respectfully Submitted, LUIS V. SAENZ Cameron County District Attorney 964 East Harrison Street, 4th Floor Brownsville, Texas 78520 Phone: (956) 544-0849 Fax: (956) 544-0869 By: /s/ René B. González René B. González Assistant District Attorney State Bar No. 08131380 rgonzalez1@co.cameron.tx.us Attorneys for the State of Texas *13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this document contains 1,700 words (excluding the cover, table of contents and table of authorities). The body text is in 14 point font, and the
footnote text is in 12 point font.
/s/ René B. González René B. González CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing State’s Appellate Brief was e-mailed to Mr. Larry Warner, Attorney at Law, 3109 Banyan Drive, Harlingen, Texas 78550, at
Office@larrywarner.com on the 2nd day of April, 2015.
/s/ René B. González René B. González
[1] Article 1.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states, in part: “... in no event shall a person charged be convicted upon his plea without sufficient evidence to support same. The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in such case consents in writing, in open court, to waive the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses, and further consents ... to the introduction of testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and any other documentary evidence in support of the judgment of the court.”