By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Juvenile’s acknowledgement of truth of
petition satisfies any plea substantiation requirement the Family Code may
impose (00-3-13)
On June 28, 2000, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that even if the Family
Code imposes a plea substantiation requirement similar to that required in
criminal cases by Code of Criminal Procedure Article 1.15, it was fully met by
appellant’s acknowledgement in response to a question from the judge that he
was pleading guilty because the allegations in the petition are true.
00-3-13. In the Matter of L.E.A., UNPUBLISHED, No. 09-98-00345-CV, 2000 WL
830698, 2000 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.-Dallas 6/28/00)[Texas Juvenile Law 156
(4th Edition 1996)].
Facts: L.E.A., a juvenile appellant, appeals a judgment in which the trial court
found he engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense of arson, a
second degree felony. Appellant pled true to the charge and waived his right to
a jury trial. The trial court committed appellant to an indeterminate sentence
in the custody of the Texas Youth Commission. In two points of error, appellant
generally contends the trial court erred in finding he committed the offense of
arson because (1) the trial court did not require a stipulation of the evidence
and (2) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the
judgment. After reviewing appellant's points of error, we conclude all
dispositive issues are clearly settled in law. Therefore, we issue this
memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: In two points of error, appellant argues that section 54.03 of the
family code, like article 1.15 of the code of criminal procedure, requires a
plea of true to be supported by evidence other than the plea itself. See Tex.
Fam.Code Ann. § 54.03 (Vernon Supp.2000); Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15
(Vernon Supp.2000). We need not determine whether section 54.03 requires
evidence in addition to appellant's plea of true to support his adjudication
order because even assuming it does, appellant judicially confessed to the
allegations in the State's petition regarding a child engaged in delinquent
conduct.
At the beginning of the adjudication hearing, the trial court orally admonished
appellant of his rights pursuant to section 54.03 of the family code. See Tex.
Fam.Code Ann. § 54.03 (Vernon Supp.2000). The trial court read the charges to
appellant as alleged in the State's petition. After the trial court read the
allegation, appellant pleaded true to the allegation of arson. The following
exchange occurred between the judge and appellant:
court: Now, are you pleading true to this allegation because it is true and for
no other reason?
appellant: It is true.
court: No one has forced you, coerced you, threatened you, done anything to you
to make you plead true to this allegation?
appellant: No ma'am.
After further questioning to determine the voluntariness of Appellant's plea,
the trial court accepted appellant's plea of true, found that he engaged in
delinquent conduct, and informed him of his right to appeal and to have an
attorney represent him on appeal. The court then proceeded to disposition.
It is well settled that a judicial confession standing alone is sufficient to
sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea even if the defendant does nothing more
than affirm the allegations in the indictment are true and correct. See Dinnery
v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Lemons v. State, 953 S.W.2d
825, 828 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.); Solis v. State, 945 S.W.2d
300, 302 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd). Because appellant
affirmed that the allegations in the State's petition were true, we conclude
that appellant judicially confessed to the allegations in the State's petition.
See id. Consequently, we conclude that the evidence is legally and factually
sufficient to support the trial court's judgment adjudicating appellant a child
engaged in delinquent conduct. We overrule points of error one and two.
Having overruled all points of error, the judgment is affirmed