Jason Allen Ladd v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 294th District Court of Van Zandt County

NO. 12-07-00003-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JASON ALLEN LADD, APPEAL FROM THE 294TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jason Allen Ladd appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. In one issue, Appellant argues that there is no evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged by indictment with failure to register as a sex offender.1 Appellant pleaded guilty and signed a stipulation to evidence in support thereof. The matter proceeded to a trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten years and fined Appellant two thousand dollars. This appeal followed.

Evidentiary Support of Conviction Following Guilty Plea

In his sole issue, Appellant argues that there is no evidence in the record to support his conviction. Article 1.15 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

No person can be convicted of a felony except upon the verdict of a jury duly rendered and recorded, unless in felony cases less than capital, the defendant, upon entering a plea, has in open court in person waived his right of trial by jury in writing in accordance with Articles 1.13 and 1.14; provided, however, that it shall be necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment and in no event shall a person charged be convicted upon his plea without sufficient evidence to support the same . . .

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon 2005).

In a guilty plea case where the defendant has waived his right to a jury trial, the State must introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant. McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. App. Dallas 2006, no pet.). Under this procedural safeguard, there is no requirement that the supporting evidence prove the defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Instead, the supporting evidence must simply embrace every essential element of the offense charged. Id. Article 1.15 is mandatory and must be followed for a stipulation to be considered as evidence where the plea is before the court. See Messer v. State, 729 S.W.2d 694, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (op. on rehearing). A stipulation to evidence is a substitute for the presentation of evidence of the facts at issue. If a defendant elects to stipulate to evidence against him, his stipulation is a kind of judicial admission in that it is a formal concession in the pleadings in the case or stipulation by a party or counsel that has the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact. See Bryant v. State, 187 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Jones v. State, No. 12-05-00373-CR, 2006 WL 3086168, at *2 (Tex. App. Tyler Nov. 1, 2006, no pet.).

In the case at hand, Appellant argues that the date of the offense in the stipulation he signed was prior to the date by which he was required to register under the law. Thus, Appellant contends, the facts to which he stipulated do not properly support his conviction. We disagree. Although as the State concedes, the stipulation Appellant signed did not contain the correct date, Appellant further stipulated that he committed the offense of sex offender s duty to register exactly as charged within the indictment or information. The indictment charged that Appellant, on or about August 7, 2005, while being a person required to register with the local law enforcement authority in Van Zandt County because of a reportable conviction for sexual assault of a child, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly failed to verify registration by failing to report once each year not earlier than the thirtieth day before and not later than the thirtieth day after the anniversary of his date of birth. Since the record reflects that Appellant judicially confessed that he committed the charged offense exactly as set forth in the indictment, which contained a date outside the registration deadline, we hold that there is supporting evidence for Appellant s conviction which embraces every essential element of the offense charged. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 62.051; McGill, 200 S.W.3d at 330. Appellant s sole issue is overruled.

Disposition

Having overruled Appellant s sole issue, we affirm the trial court s judgment.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered August 8, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 62.051 (Vernon 2006).