AFFIRM as MODIFIED; Opinion Filed May 6, 2020 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00999-CR No. 05-19-01001-CR PABLO PACHECO RAMIREZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-76295-V & F17-76296-V MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Nowell The State charged Pablo Pacheco Ramirez with aggravated sexual assault of a child (trial court cause number F17-76295-V) and indecency with a child (trial court cause number F17-76296-V). He waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of no contest. After hearing evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty in both cases. He was sentenced to twelve years’ confinement. In three issues, he argues the evidence is insufficient to support both convictions and his plea of no contest was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. In his fourth issue, he requests we modify the judgment in trial court cause number F17-76296-V to delete duplicative court costs. We modify the judgment in trial court cause number F17-76296-V and affirm as modified. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in trial court cause number F17-76295-V. A. Sufficiency of the Evidence 1. Legal Standards In his first and second issues, appellant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.1 We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on a criminal offense for which the State has the burden of proof under the single sufficiency standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Acosta v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621, 624–25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Under this standard, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This standard accounts for the factfinder’s duty to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences 1 Appellant entered a no contest plea, which had the effect of admitting all material facts alleged in the formal charge and alleviating the State from proving appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Article 1.15 of the code of criminal procedure only requires substantiation of a no contest plea. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15; see Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 13. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on a plea of no contest, we determine whether the evidence embraces each essential element of the offense charged. See id. However, in this case, the record shows the parties and trial court conducted the trial as though appellant pleaded not guilty and the State was required to prove the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of that, appellant requests we review the evidence under the standard set forth in Jackson v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals