Opinion
No. 05-11-01131-CR
05-29-2012
WILLIE RAY CONERLY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion Filed May 29, 2012.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F11-54223-H
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Myers
Opinion By Justice Myers
Willie Ray Conerly waived a jury, pleaded guilty to robbery, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by the prior felony conviction, at eighteen years' imprisonment. In a single point of error, the appellant contends the trial court erred by finding him guilty of robbery rather than the lesser- included offense of theft. We affirm. The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. Appellant asserts that because he recanted his judicial confession and testified he did not touch the complainant nor was he even aware that the complainant was injured, the trial court erred by finding him guilty of robbery. The State responds the record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of guilt for robbery.
When a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere, the State must introduce sufficient evidence into the record to support the plea and show the defendant is guilty, and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (West 2005); see also Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). We will affirm the trial court's judgment if the evidence introduced embraces every essential element of the offense charged and is sufficient to establish a defendant's guilt. See Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
The indictment alleged appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant, in the course of committing theft, by punching the complainant. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(1) (West 2011). Appellant's signed judicial confession that he committed the offense as alleged in the indictment was admitted into evidence. See Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (it is well settled that a judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea). Although appellant denied hitting or injuring anyone, he did not object to the prosecutor reading the testimony from five witnesses into the record. The prosecutor stated the five witnesses would testify they saw appellant “fighting and maintaining control and custody of the store's property.” It was the trial court's role, as the fact finder in this case, to reconcile conflicts in the evidence and judge the witnesses' credibility. See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (en banc). As such, the trial court was free to disbelieve appellant's version of the case that conflicted with his judicial confession and the statements of the witnesses.
We conclude the trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of the offense of robbery. We overrule appellant's sole point of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
111131F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
WILLIE RAY CONERLY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-11-01131-CR
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F11-54223- H).
Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Morris and Moseley participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 29, 2012.
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE