In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-16-00102-CR
MICHAEL LAVETTE DANIELS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 124th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 45,187-B
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Lavette Daniels was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment after he entered an
open plea of guilty to and was convicted of possession of four or more but less than 200 grams of
cocaine, with intent to deliver. In his sole point of error on appeal, Daniels argues that his guilty
plea was not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no certification of contraband
from a laboratory. Because we find that Daniels’ signed stipulation of evidence, judicial
confession, and admissions in open court provided sufficient evidence to support his plea of guilt,
we overrule Daniels’ sole point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
The State is required to introduce evidence demonstrating the defendant’s guilt, and no
trial court is authorized to render a conviction in a felony case based on a plea of guilty without
sufficient evidence to support the same. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.15 (West 2005).
“Article 1.15 ‘[b]y its plain terms . . . requires evidence in addition to, and independent of, the plea
itself to establish the defendant’s guilt.’” Baggett v. State, 342 S.W.3d 172, 174 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d) (quoting Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)).
In open court, and after the proper admonishments, Daniels pled guilty to the State’s
indictment and informed the trial court that he was, in fact, guilty of the offense. Daniels signed a
stipulation of evidence, in which he judicially confessed that he possessed four or more but less
than 200 grams of cocaine, with the intent to deliver, as alleged in the indictment. The State
admitted Daniels’ stipulation of evidence during the plea hearing, along with (1) an offense report
stating that 16.8 grams of cocaine were found during the execution of the warrant that led to
Daniels’ arrest, (2) photographs taken during controlled, undercover purchases of drugs from
2
Daniels, (3) detailed reports of information provided to law enforcement by confidential
informants, (4) a chain of custody report, and (5) a controlled substance analysis laboratory report
from the Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory in Tyler, Texas, which concluded
that the substance recovered from Daniels’ possession contained 15.59 grams of cocaine.
Daniels argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his guilty plea because there was
no certificate of analysis under Article 38.41, which reads,
A certificate of analysis that complies with this article is admissible in evidence on
behalf of the state or the defendant to establish the results of a laboratory analysis
of physical evidence conducted by or for a law enforcement agency without the
necessity of the analyst personally appearing in court.
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.41, § 1 (West Supp. 2016). Under the terms of this
statute, should a proponent choose to utilize Article 38.41, he must file a certificate of analysis
with the clerk of the court, and provide a copy to the opponent, not later than the twentieth day
before the trial begins. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.41, § 4 (West Supp. 2016). The
certificate is not admissible if the opposing party, at least ten days before trial, files a valid written
objection to the certificate. Id.
Daniels’ suggestion that a laboratory analysis cannot be considered as evidence in the
absence of a certificate of analysis is incorrect. Article 38.41 merely provides one avenue by which
the State can establish the results of a laboratory analysis. Here, the State introduced the laboratory
analysis report without any objection by Daniels, which is another avenue of admission into
evidence.
In any event, a stipulation of evidence or judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient
to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea so long as it establishes every element of the offense
3
charged. Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Here, Daniels’ statements
in open court and his signed stipulation of evidence, containing his judicial confession to all of the
elements of the offense, alone constituted sufficient evidence to support his plea of guilt. The
evidence admitted during the plea hearing without objection merely provided additional support.
Accordingly, we overrule Daniels’ sole point of error.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: December 8, 2016
Date Decided: February 1, 2017
Do Not Publish
4