Juan Valero v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Juan Valero v. State

DecidedSeptember 1, 1999

Docket04-98-00990-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Juan Valero v. State (Juan Valero v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juan Valero v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

98-00990 & 00991 Valero v State of Texas.wpd Nos. 04-98-00990-CR & 04-98-00991-CR Juan VALERO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 97CR1288 & 97CR1328 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 1, 1999

AFFIRMED

Juan Valero appeals his convictions for robbery and aggravated robbery. In his sole point of error, Valero asserts that the trial court erred in accepting his pleas of guilty because there was no evidence admitted by the trial judge to support the guilty pleas.⁽¹⁾ Valero admits that the State offered his written stipulation and judicial confession as evidence at the plea hearing; however, Valero contends that since the exhibit was not admitted into evidence, it cannot be considered as evidence in support of his pleas. We disagree.

"[W]here the record indicates a judicial confession and agreement to stipulate evidence were filed and approved by the trial court and relied upon by the court in its acceptance of the defendant's plea, those documents constitute sufficient evidence to sustain the plea whether properly introduced into evidence or not." Palacios v. State, 942 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); see also Lara v. State, 962 S.W.2d 148, 150 & n.2 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (noting that if reporter's record shows trial court considered stipulations, stipulations can be considered as evidence). In this case, Valero's stipulations and judicial confessions were filed and approved by the trial court and relied upon by the court in its acceptance of Valero's guilty pleas. This evidence was, therefore, sufficient evidence to sustain Valero's pleas, and the trial court's judgments are affirmed.

PHIL HARDBERGER,

CHIEF JUSTICE

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. We note that we have jurisdiction to consider this issue because the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

98-00990 & 00991 Valero v State of Texas.wpd Nos. 04-98-00990-CR & 04-98-00991-CR Juan VALERO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 97CR1288 & 97CR1328 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 1, 1999

AFFIRMED

Juan Valero appeals his convictions for robbery and aggravated robbery. In his sole point of error, Valero asserts that the trial court erred in accepting his pleas of guilty because there was no evidence admitted by the trial judge to support the guilty pleas.⁽¹⁾ Valero admits that the State offered his written stipulation and judicial confession as evidence at the plea hearing; however, Valero contends that since the exhibit was not admitted into evidence, it cannot be considered as evidence in support of his pleas. We disagree.

"[W]here the record indicates a judicial confession and agreement to stipulate evidence were filed and approved by the trial court and relied upon by the court in its acceptance of the defendant's plea, those documents constitute sufficient evidence to sustain the plea whether properly introduced into evidence or not." Palacios v. State, 942 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); see also Lara v. State, 962 S.W.2d 148, 150 & n.2 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (noting that if reporter's record shows trial court considered stipulations, stipulations can be considered as evidence). In this case, Valero's stipulations and judicial confessions were filed and approved by the trial court and relied upon by the court in its acceptance of Valero's guilty pleas. This evidence was, therefore, sufficient evidence to sustain Valero's pleas, and the trial court's judgments are affirmed.

PHIL HARDBERGER,

CHIEF JUSTICE

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. We note that we have jurisdiction to consider this issue because the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Juan Valero v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-valero-v-state-texapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack