Mathew Louis Barrera v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion for Rehearing Overruled, Affirmed and Substitute Memorandum Opinion
filed December 23, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-09-00544-CR
MATHEW LOUIS BARRERA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 434th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 49591
SUBSTITUTE MEMORANDUM OPINION
We overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion of November
23, 2010, and issue this substitute memorandum opinion on rehearing.
Appellant
Matthew Louis Barrera challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
conviction for intoxicated manslaughter. He further asserts that the trial court erred in
refusing to accept his plea of ―true‖ to the deadly weapon allegation 1 and was thus
precluded from making such a finding because use of a deadly weapon is not an element
1
Perhaps appellant intended to assert that the trial court erred in not refusing to accept his plea of
―true,‖ because, as noted infra, the trial court actually did accept appellant’s plea. Regardless of what
appellant meant by this rather confusing issue, however, our disposition of his appeal remains the same.
of intoxicated manslaughter with a motor vehicle and because insufficient evidence
supports the finding. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant pleaded guilty as charged in the indictment in open court without an
agreed recommendation on punishment. The indictment provided:
MATHEW LOUIS BARRERA, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore
on or about December 03, 2007, did then and there operate a motor vehicle
while intoxicated by not having the normal use of his mental or physical
faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into the body, or by
having an alcohol concentration of at least 0.08, and did then and there by
reason of such intoxication cause the death of another, namely, James
Warren, by accident or mistake, to wit: driving said motor vehicle into
James Warren and/or a motorcycle operated by James Warren.
It is further presented that the said defendant did then and there use or
exhibit a deadly weapon during the commission of said offense, to wit: a
2007 Chevrolet Cobalt automobile in conjunction with the consumption of
alcohol and operation of said Cobalt automobile, that in the manner of its
use and intended use was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.
After he pleaded guilty, he waived any errors relating to guilt or innocence; in fact, he
twice acknowledged that by pleading guilty, he understood he was waiving any errors
regarding guilt or innocence. He also pleaded true to the deadly weapon allegation. He
again acknowledged that he understood he was waiving any right to appeal that plea. The
trial court accepted his plea and proceeded with a unitary jury trial on punishment.2
Several witnesses testified that appellant was driving while intoxicated and caused the
death of the decedent. Appellant took the stand and acknowledged his guilt before the
jury. After being instructed by the trial court to find him guilty as charged in the
indictment and to make a finding of ―true‖ to the deadly weapon allegation, the jury did
so and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. The trial court
entered the judgment accordingly, and this appeal timely followed.
2
See Carroll v. State, 975 S.W.2d 630, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc)..
2
ANALYSIS
Appellant (a) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction
and (b) complains that the trial court’s refusal to accept a plea on a deadly weapon
allegation (that it actually accepted) precluded it from making this finding because use of
a deadly weapon is not an element of the offense and insufficient evidence supports the
finding.3 But, as noted above, appellant pleaded ―guilty‖ to the trial court and pleaded
―true‖ to the deadly weapon allegation. In a unitary proceeding, as occurred here, a
guilty plea before a jury or judge is conclusive as to the defendant’s guilt. Carroll v.
State, 975 S.W.2d 630, 631–32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc). Further, appellant’s
judicial confession is sufficient evidence to show that he used a deadly weapon, and the
record need not otherwise provide proof. Keller v. State, 125 S.W.3d 600, 605 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. dism’d).
Moreover, in a unitary proceeding, evidence submitted for punishment may
substitute for or supplement evidence submitted in support of the guilty plea.
See
Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d 446, 450–51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (en banc).
As
described above, numerous witnesses testified that appellant was driving while
intoxicated when he ran over the decedent. Appellant explained that his intoxicated
driving caused the death of the decedent. Additionally, Trooper Devon Wiles, with the
Texas Department of Public Safety, testified that, in conjunction with appellant’s alcohol
consumption, appellant used his motor vehicle as a deadly weapon. This evidence
supplemented and supported appellant’s guilty plea and plea of ―true‖ to the deadly
weapon allegation. See id. Accordingly, we conclude that there is more than sufficient
evidence to support both appellant’s conviction and the deadly weapon finding. We thus
overrule appellant’s issues.
3
As noted above, the jury made the deadly weapon finding after being instructed to do so by the
trial court.
3
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/
Adele Hedges
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justice Yates, and Senior Justice Mirabal.*
Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
*
Senior Justice Margaret Garner Mirabal sitting by assignment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
