Ex Parte Gustavo Villalpando--Appeal from County Court at Law No 7 of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00604-CR
EX PARTE Gustavo VILLALPANDO
From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 366034
Honorable Monica E. Guerrero, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 24, 2003

AFFIRMED

Gustavo Villalpando ("Villalpando") appeals the trial court's order denying his post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. (1) Villalpando asserts four points of error in his brief, contending that the State did not introduce any evidence to support his plea, the complaint and information were defective, and his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We overrule Villalpando's contentions and affirm the trial court's order.

With regard to Villalpando's first point of error, the State is not required to present any evidence to the trial court in support of a plea to a misdemeanor offense. See Isam v. State, 582 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Avila v. State, 884 S.W.2d 896, 897 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1994, no pet.). With regard to Villalpando's second and third points of error, the supplemental clerk's record filed in this appeal contains a complaint and information that accurately charge Villalpando with the offense for which he was sentenced. The stamping of an inaccurate cause number on the complaint in the space designated "for clerk's use only" does not invalidate the complaint and information. Furthermore, Villalpando waived any issues regarding alleged defects in the complaint or information by failing to object to the defects before trial. Sanchez v. State, No. 050-01, 2003 WL 22682481, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2003). Finally, no evidence was presented that would rebut the recitation in the trial court's judgment that Villalpando's plea was free and voluntary. See Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (record must affirmatively rebut presumption of regularity and truthfulness created by recitals in judgment); Cochrane v. State, 66 S.W.3d 415, 417 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2001, no pet.) (same); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (same). Neither the typographical error in the judgment regarding the date of the offense nor the cause number stamped on the complaint in the space designated "for clerk's use only" is sufficient to rebut the presumption.

The trial court's order is affirmed.

Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. We have jurisdiction to consider the trial court's order because it arises from a misdemeanor conviction. See Ex parte Jordan, 659 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).