Cessica Desha Darden v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-16-00399-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; April 27, 2017; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On April 27, 2017, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in the case of Cessica Desha Darden, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Darden was initially indicted for aggravated robbery involving serious bodily injury, with allegations stemming from an incident on December 15, 2013, where she allegedly caused injury to B. Ginsburg using her motor vehicle. Following a presentence investigation, the trial court sentenced her to 15 years in prison without a recommendation for punishment.

Darden raised one issue on appeal, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s judgment. The plea agreement Darden signed included a waiver of her constitutional rights and a judicial confession, where she acknowledged the truth of the allegations and consented to the stipulation of evidence. The plea document, also signed by her defense attorney and an assistant district attorney, indicated that Darden had knowingly and voluntarily entered her plea.

During the plea hearing, the trial court confirmed Darden's understanding of the charge and the potential punishment range, to which she responded affirmatively. The court's approval of the plea and the absence of any agreed recommendation for punishment were also noted. The appellate court ultimately found sufficient evidence to uphold the trial court’s judgment.

The trial court confirmed that Appellant had voluntarily pleaded guilty, understanding her rights and the range of punishment, and scheduled a presentence investigation (PSI). Appellant briefly testified about an incident involving her co-defendant, Denitra Green, and Ginsburg, where after receiving tickets from Ginsburg, Green drove off with Ginsburg clinging to the car. Appellant described her fear during the incident and thought Ginsburg let go voluntarily when Green threatened to accelerate. Following the PSI, the trial court held a joint sentencing hearing for both Appellant and Green, ultimately severing their cases before sentencing. The PSI report indicated that Appellant had responded to a Craigslist ad for concert tickets and that during the incident, she hit and kicked Ginsburg to make him release the car, resulting in Ginsburg suffering serious injuries. Ginsburg corroborated elements of the PSI report with minor discrepancies, stating he felt a kick from the passenger side. Appellant denied intentionally kicking Ginsburg, suggesting any contact could have been accidental. After confirming her guilty plea to aggravated assault, the court found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced her to 15 years in prison. On appeal, Appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, claiming her judicial confession pertained to aggravated robbery rather than aggravated assault, and contended that the State failed to prove she acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, as required for the charge.

In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence supporting a criminal conviction, all evidence is viewed favorably towards the verdict to ascertain if a rational basis exists for finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendant waiving their right to a jury trial must have evidence presented that demonstrates guilt; a conviction cannot occur solely based on a plea without sufficient supporting evidence. Various forms of evidence, including written stipulations, can substantiate a guilty plea if they cover all elements of the offense. A defendant may not need to admit the truth of the stipulated evidence, but such an admission is treated as a judicial confession. The evidence must encompass all elements of the charged offense, although not necessarily prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases of conflicting evidence post-plea, the trial court may find the defendant guilty, not guilty, or guilty of a lesser offense based on the evidence presented. Lesser-included offenses are defined by meeting specific criteria, including being proven by the same or fewer facts than the charged offense or involving a less serious injury or mental state. Robbery, aggravated robbery, assault, and aggravated assault are defined under Texas Penal Code, with aggravated robbery requiring the use of a deadly weapon. The elements necessary for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon can overlap with those required for aggravated robbery.

Appellant signed a document titled 'Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession,' which included stipulated facts aligned with the aggravated robbery indictment, along with a note indicating a state motion to reduce the charge to aggravated assault. She confessed to causing serious bodily injury to Ginsburg while committing theft on December 15, 2013, detailing actions involving a motor vehicle that resulted in injury. Appellant admitted to using a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon during the offense and during her escape. She waived her rights to a jury trial, witness confrontation, and protection against self-incrimination, acknowledging that the allegations were true.

Furthermore, Appellant consented to the stipulations of evidence and confirmed reading the indictment. Her signed statement constituted a valid judicial confession covering all elements of the charged offenses, asserting her guilt independently of her plea. As established in relevant case law, a valid judicial confession is sufficient evidence for a conviction without the need for further proof. 

Appellant contends that her judicial confession inadequately addressed aggravated assault, arguing that the trial judge failed to clarify the charge during the proceedings. She cites Breaux v. State, which involved a judicial confession lacking an essential element, leading to a reversal of judgment. However, Breaux is distinguished from the current case, as Appellant's confession did not omit any elements but rather supported the aggravated robbery charge. Thus, her judicial confession provided sufficient evidence for both the aggravated robbery and the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault.

Appellant contends that the indictment and confession lack elements of aggravated assault due to her guilty plea for aggravated robbery. However, aggravated robbery includes aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense, as outlined in Texas law. The State's indictment and Appellant's judicial confession detail her actions involving theft and the use of a deadly weapon, fulfilling the requirements for aggravated assault. The trial court found sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of aggravated assault based on her judicial confession, which aligns with the indictment, and testimony from Ginsburg and the presentence investigation report corroborated her guilt for both offenses. 

Despite Appellant's claim that there was insufficient evidence of intent, the trial court could reasonably find her guilty of the lesser offense based on the judicial confession and the overall evidence presented. Appellant's assertions regarding her intent were considered but did not negate the evidence supporting her conviction. The trial court's judgment is upheld, affirming the conviction.