WILLIAM MARTIN HOACH, II, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed April 28, 2009.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-00836-CR
No. 05-08-00838-CR
No. 05-08-01400-CR
No. 05-08-01401-CR
............................
 
WILLIAM MARTIN HOACH, II, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-29968-US, F08-44844-WS, F05-72415-NS, F08-44833-US
.............................................................
 
OPINION
 
Before Justices Morris, Richter, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
 
 
        William Martin Hoach, II appeals four convictions. In four issues, appellant contends the trial court's judgments in two cases violate the requirements of article 42.01 and the convictions in two cases violate article 1.15. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Background
 
        In cause nos. 05-08-00836-CR and 05-08-01400-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) in an amount of one gram or more, but less than four grams, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a firearm. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (c) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on five years' community supervision in each case, and assessed a $500 fine in the GHB case.
        The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging several violations, including committing new offenses of credit card abuse and unlawfully carrying a weapon. In a joint adjudication and plea hearing, appellant pleaded true to the State's allegations. In the new credit card abuse and unlawfully carrying a weapon offenses, cause nos. 05-08-00838-CR and 05-08-01401-CR, appellant waived a jury and entered open guilty pleas. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 32.31(b)(1); 46.02(a)(c) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The trial court granted the State's motions, adjudicated appellant guilty in each case, and assessed punishment at five years' imprisonment in the GHB case and eighteen years' imprisonment in the aggravated assault case. The trial court assessed punishment at one year confinement in a state jail facility for credit card abuse and two years' imprisonment for unlawfully carrying a weapon.
Article 42.01
 
        In his first and second issues, appellant contends the trial court's written judgments in cause nos. 05-08-00836-CR and 05-08-01400-CR violate the requirements of article 42.01 because they do not specify which allegations in the motions to adjudicate the trial court found appellant had violated. Appellant argues the judgments refer to the “attached” motion to adjudicate, but no such motion is attached to either judgment. The State responds that appellant has waived this issue because he did not request the trial court make specific findings and include them in the judgments, and, further, the trial court is not required to make specific findings.
 
        Article 42.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure recites the specific information that must be contained in a trial court's written judgment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.01, § 1 (Vernon 2006). In the absence of a request for specific findings, the trial court need not make specific findings in the order revoking community supervision. See King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tex. Crim. App.1983).
        Appellant neither raised these issues in his motions for new trial nor requested specific findings from the trial court. Moreover, the motions to adjudicate are included in the record, and the judgments recite the trial court found the allegations in the motions to adjudicate had been proved. We conclude the judgments adjudicating guilt satisfy the article 42.01 requirements. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.01, § 1(8). We resolve appellant's first and second issues against him.
Article 1.15
 
        In his third and fourth issues, appellant contends his convictions in cause nos. 05-08-00838- CR and 05-08-01401-CR violate article 1.15 because the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to show that he lacked the effective consent of the owner of the credit card he had used, and to show that the premises into which he carried a club was legally authorized to sell alcohol. The State responds that appellant's signed judicial confessions and stipulations of evidence are sufficient to satisfy the article 1.15 requirements and support the convictions.
        Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when a defendant pleads guilty, he cannot be convicted upon his plea alone without sufficient evidence to support the plea. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon 2005); see also Wright v. State, 930 S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996, no pet.). The State must introduce evidence showing the defendant's guilt. Wright, 930 S.W.2d at 132. We will affirm the trial court's judgment under article 1.15 if the evidence introduced embraces every essential element of the offense charged and is sufficient to establish a defendant's guilt. See Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Wright, 930 S.W.2d at 132. Our review of the record to determine whether the State complied with article 1.15 is not a factual sufficiency review, and there is no requirement that the supporting evidence prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.).
        Appellant signed a written judicial confession in each case admitting he committed each offense as alleged in the applicable indictment. The confessions were admitted into evidence without objection. Appellant also orally affirmed to the trial court that he was pleading guilty because he was guilty and for no other reason. Finally, appellant admitted his picture was on several driver's licenses with different names on them. Appellant claimed his friend put appellant's picture on the licenses because the friend intended to sell them as “novelty items.” Appellant also testified he “fraudulently” used the credit cards “from time to time to pay for hotel rooms” because he had lost his job and house. The trial court, as the sole judge of the credibility of the evidence, was not required to believe appellant's attempts to minimize his conduct. See Westbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction in each case. We resolve appellant's third and fourth issues against him.
        In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          
                                                          ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
080836F.U05