Miracle, Ryan Scott v. State ( 2012 )

AFFIRM; Opinion Filed November 5, 2012.
In The
nizrt rif i\ppeati
Fifth Jitrirt nf Jixai tt attw5
No. 05-i 1-00978-CR
No. 05-1 1-00979-CR
No. 05-1 1-00981-CR
RYAN SCOTT MIRAC[E, Appellant
‘J.
TIlE STATE OF TEXAS, Appeilee
On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court
Rockw all County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 2-11-85, 2-11-86, and 2-11-88
OPINION
Before Justices O’Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
Appellant Ryan Scott Miracle, one of several accomplices, was charged with three counts
of aggravated robbery. Appellant entered an open plea of guilty in all three cases and was sentenced
by the trial court to concurrent sentences of eight years in prison in each case. In one issue on appeal
appellant argues that his pleas were involuntary. We resolve appellant’s sole issue against him and
affirm.
Appellant argues that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily because
(1) the indictments allege the use of a “BB gun” and “BB Shotgun,” which are not deadly weapons;
and (2) he only furnished the vehicle used in the robberies and “did not himself use or exhibit any
weapon.” Stated differently, appellant argues that his pleas to the charges of aggravated robbery
were not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he “did not use or exhibit any weapon at all
[and] the weapon used by others was not a firearm or deadly.” In a related argument, appellant also
complains that the trial court’s admonishment “failed to correctly state the law” because without the
deadly weapon findings appellant could have been found guilty of the lesser included offense of
robbery and “straight probation would have become a punishment option.”
To the extent that appellant is complaining about a substantive defect in the indictment, he
has waived this complaint by not raising it before his guilty plea. See Tux. CODE CRIM, PRoc. ANN.
art. 1.14(b) (West 2005) (“If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form
or substance in an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits
commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may
not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postconviction proceeding.”); Jack v. State, 871
S.W.2d 741, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (“[A] nonnegotiated guilty plea waives all
nonjurisdictional defects occurring prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”).
And to the extent that appellant is complaining about the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the deadly weapon findings, we conclude that appellant’s judicial confessions are sufficient
to support the findings. The indictments alleged that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon
during commission of the aggravated robberies. Appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed
to committing “each and every allegation” contained in the indictments. Appellant’s judicial
confessions, alone, are sufficient to support the deadly weapon findings contained in the written
judgments. See Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (op. on reh’g) (“It
is well settled that a judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon
a guilty plea and to satisfy the requirements of Article 1.15.” (internal citations omitted)); see also
Alexander v. State, 868 S.W.2d 356, 361 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.) (“If a defendant pleads
—2—
guilty to an indictment that includes an allegation that lie used a dead! weapon, the trial court may
make a deadly weapon finding.”).
Finally, with respect to appellant’s argument that his pleas were involuntary, we note that
appellant did not complain to the trial court about the voluntariness of his guilty pleas either befbre
or after his sentencing. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1, a party must first complain
to the trial court and obtain a ruling in order to preserve most complaints for appellate review. See
Tix. R. API. P. 33.1 . The court of criminal appeals and this Court have held that the rule 33. 1
requirement of preservation of error applies to complaints about the voluntariness of a guilty plea.
See Mendez v. State, 13$ S,W.3d 334, 339,350 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Aldrich v. State, 53 S.W.3d
460. 468-69 (Tex. App.-—Dallas 2001), aj/’d, 104 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We
conclude that appellant has not preserved his complaint about the voluntariness of his guilty pleas
for appellate review, But even if appellant had preserved this issue for appellate review, we would
resolve it against him. There is no evidence in the record that appellant’s guilty pleas were not made
knowingly and voluntarily. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that the trial court admonished
appellant as to the range of punishment for the first-degree felony of aggravated robbery, and that
appellant fully understood the proceedings, including the trial court’s admonishments and the effects
of his guilty pleas.
CONCLUSION
We resolve appellant’s sole issue against him and affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Do Not Publish
TEx. R. App. P.47
1 10978F.U05
nurt nf ;pprah
FiftIi Diitrirt nf ixai tt Lt11ai
JUDGMENT
RYAN SCOTT MIRACLE, Appellant Appeal from the 439th Judicial District
Court of Rockwafl County, Texas.
No. 05-i 1-00978-CR V. (Tr.Ct.No. 2-1 1-85).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald
participatmg.
Based Ofl the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMEI).
Judgment entered November 5, 2012.
1
E LIABETH LANG-MI S
/ JUSICE
0
niirt tif _pit1
iift1i 1i;trirt nf rxa at Ja1{a
JUDGMENT
RYAN SCOTT MIRACLE. Appellant Appeal from the 439th Judicial District
Court of Rockwall County, Texas.
No. 05- 11-00979-CR V. (Tr.Ct.No. 2-1 1-86).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 5, 2012.
/ I
/
kfZA13ETH LANGM1E
9
’1
JUSTTCE
(!tnirt nf ijiahi
fiffJi Oitrjrt nf Lcxai tt Ja1Ia
JUDGMENT
RYAN SCOTT MIRACLE, Appellant Appeal from the 43 9th Judicial District
Court of Rockwal I County, Texas.
No. 05-Il -009$ I-CR V. (Tr.Ct.No. 2-1 1-88).
Opinion delivered by .Justice Lang—Miers.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial Court IS AFFIRN’IED.
Judgment entered November 5, 2012.
/2 1
-
1 ‘ /‘
1
/f
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUS’IICL