Willie Robert Smith, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 272nd District Court of Brazos County

AFFIRMED

AUGUST 16, 1990

NOS. 10-90-056-CR

10-90-057-CR

10-90-058-CR

Trial Court

#'s 18,929-272

18,932-272

18,935-272

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT WACO

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

WILLIE ROBERT SMITH, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

From 272nd Judicial District Court

Brazos County, Texas

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

These appeals stem from convictions under three indictments that each charged appellant with a third-degree felony offense of theft of property valued at less than $750 after having been previously convicted twice of theft offenses. The offenses allegedly occurred in June and July 1989, violating Texas Penal Code 31.03(e)(4)(C). See now 31.03(e)(4)(E). Appellant pleaded guilty to the court in each case. Punishment was assessed by the court in each case at confinement in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of ten years, and the court ordered that the punishments in the three cases would be served concurrently. These appeals resulted.

In three points of error, appellant seeks reversals in the cases on grounds (1) that the evidence was not sufficient to support the convictions, (2) that the trial court failed to properly admonish appellant as to the consequences of his guilty pleas, and (3) that the evidence was not sufficient to support the punishment assessed. Since the points of error are identical in each case, we shall consider the appeals jointly.

Appellant pleaded guilty to the three offenses as charged in the indictments and judicially confessed in open court, under oath, to the charges set forth in each indictment. A judicial confession alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea, and to satisfy the requirements of article 1.15, V.A.C.C.P., for evidence corroborating the guilty plea. Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Point one is overruled.

The record shows that the trial court's admonishment of appellant surrounding appellant's plea of guilty complied in every pertinent respect with the requirements of article 26.13, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Even substantial compliance with this statute is sufficient. Adams v. State, 630 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no pet.). Appellant has failed to show us how he was mislead or harmed by any faulty admonishment. Point two is overruled.

Appellant argues under his third point of error that the record "indicates that the court had a bias against the defendant that affect[ed] the decision on punishment," because the trial judge stated to appellant immediately prior to the assessment of punishment that appellant was "probably a career criminal" and suggested that appellant had attempted to "weasel" out of his plea of guilty at one stage in the proceedings by suggesting that he had only pleaded guilty because his lawyer had told him to plead guilty. These statements made by the trial judge, although unnecessary, were supported by the evidence which showed four felony convictions (possession of a controlled substance, two thefts, and escape) prior to the commission of the three offenses in question. The punishments assessed in the cases here were within the statutory limits, and were expressly ordered to be served concurrently. The record does not show that the punishments assessed were the products of bias toward appellant by the trial court. Point three is overruled.

The judgments are affirmed.

VIC HALL

DO NOT PUBLISHJustice