PD-0354-15
March 31, 2015
NO._________________
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
JIMMY BERNARD BILLINGSLEY
Petitioner
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Respondent
Petition is in Cause No. 1235745D from
Criminal District Court No. Three of Tarrant County, Texas,
and Cause No. 01-13-00052-CR in the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Abe Factor
TBN: 06768500
Factor, Campbell & Collins
Attorneys at Law
5719 Airport Freeway
Phone: (817) 222-3333
Fax: (817) 222-3330
Email: lawfactor@yahoo.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
Jimmy Bernard Billingley
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s
final judgment, as well as the names and addresses of all trial and
appellate counsel.
Petitioner: Jimmy Bernard Billingley
Petitioner’s Trial Counsel: Hon. Abe Factor
TBN: 06768500
Factor, Campbell & Collins
Attorneys at Law
5719 Airport Freeway
Fort Worth, Texas 76117
Petitioner’s Counsel Hon. Abe Factor
on Appeal: TBN: 06768500
Factor, Campbell & Collins
Attorneys at Law
5719 Airport Freeway
Fort Worth, Texas 76117
Phone: (817) 222-3333
Appellee: The State of Texas
Appellee’s Trial Counsel: Hon.Rebecca McIntire
TBN: 00789254
Hon. Joshua Ross
TBN: 24046760
District Attorney’s Office
401 W. Belknap
Fort Worth, Texas 76196
Appellee’s Counsel Hon. Charles Mallin
on Appeal: TBN: 12867400
Hon. Andy Porter
TBN: 24007857
District Attorney’s Office
401 W. Belknap Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76196
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
REASONS FOR REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
I. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Petitioner’s
guilty plea was not void. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Opinion Below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Controlling Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
D. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases page
Billingsly v. State,
11-13-00052-CR, 2015 WL xxxxx (Tex. App.–
Eastland, February 27, 2015, no. pet. h.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication). . .1-2, 3
Degrate v. State,
No. 05–04–00218–CR, 2005 WL 165182, (Tex. App.–
Dallas Jan. 26, 2005, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication). . . . . . 6
Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ex parte Martin,
747 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5
Mathonican v. State,
194 S.W.3d 59, 69–71 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2006, no pet.). . . . 6
Menefee v. State,
287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Najera v. State,
955 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. App.–Austin 1997, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Stone v. State,
919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Weeks v. State,
834 S.W.2d 559, 561–65 (Tex. App.–Eastland 1992, pet. ref’d). .6
Statutes
Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 1.15 (West 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
iv
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(46) (West Supp. 2014). . . . . . . . . .5-6, 7
v
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Because Petitioner does not believe that oral argument will
materially assist the Court in its evaluation of matters raised by this
pleading, Petitioner respectfully waives oral argument.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Jimmy Bernard Billingsley (“Petitioner” or “Mr.
Billingsley”) was charged in Count Four of a four-count indictment of
intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to Quonta
Shaw by transmitting the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) to
Ms. Shaw through sexual intercourse. (C.R. 7-8). Appellant pled guilty
to Aggravated Assault Causing Serious Bodily Injury on December 28,
2012.(C.R. 167-171); (III R.R. 4). Appellant entered an open plea of
guilty to the Court and was sentenced to 15 years confinement in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (C.R. 187). Appellant filed a
timely Notice of Appeal on December 28, 2012.(CR191).
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The opinion of the Eleventh Court of Appeals Affirming Mr.
Billingsly’s judgment was handed down on February 27, 2015. See
Billingsly v. State, 11-13-00052-CR, 2015 WL xxxxx (Tex. App.–Eastland,
February 27, 2015, no. pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for
1
publication). This timely Petition for Discretionary review ensued.
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
GROUND FOR REVIEW ONE
I. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Petitioner’s
guilty plea was not void.
REASONS FOR REVIEW
1. The decision by the Eleventh Court of Appeals has decided an
important question of state law in a way that conflicts with the
applicable decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2. The Eleventh Court of Appeals has so far departed from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned
such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the Court
of Criminal Appeals’ power of supervision.
ARGUMENT
GROUND FOR REVIEW ONE (Restated)
I. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Petitioner’s
guilty plea was not void.
Because this petition is predicated upon error by the Eleventh
Court of Appeals in its review of Mr. Billingsley’s complaint on appeal,
a review of the evidence presented and events which transpired below
is in order.
2
A. Facts
Appellant Jimmy Billingsley and the complainant Quonta Shaw
had a sexual relationship. (IV R.R. 27). Prior to having sex with Ms.
Shaw, Mr. Billingsley was HIV positive. (IV R.R. 27). During this sexual
relationship Ms. Shaw contracted HIV from Mr. Billingsley. Mr.
Billingsley did not tell Ms. Shaw he was HIV positive prior to their
sexual relationship. (IV R.R. 27) Mr. Billingsley was indicted by a four-
count indictment of knowingly transmitting HIV to Ms. Shaw. (CR 7-8).
Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily
injury and went open to the judge for punishment. (C.R. 167-171) (IV
R.R. 4). After a trial on punishment before the trial court, Appellant
was sentenced to 15 years confinement in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. (CR 187).
B. Opinion Below
Mr. Billingsley argued below that his plea of guilty was void
because the State failed to present any evidence to support his plea as
required by Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See
Billingsly, 2015 WL xxxxx at *1 (citing Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art.
3
1.15).1 In its Opinion, the Eleventh Court of Appeals simply held that
Mr. Billingsley’s judicial confession was sufficient to meet the
requirements of Article 1.15. Id.
C. Controlling Law
When a criminal defendant knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily pleads guilty, he waives his right to challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence under the traditional standard set out in
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1979). Ex
parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). However,
when a defendant pleads guilty before the trial court to a noncapital
felony offense, a conviction is not authorized under Article 1.15 unless
1
No person can be convicted of a felony except upon the verdict of a jury
duly rendered and recorded, unless the defendant, upon entering a plea,
has in open court in person waived his right of trial by jury in writing in
accordance with Articles 1.13 and 1.14; provided, however, that it shall be
necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the record showing the
guilt of the defendant and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as
the basis for its judgment and in no event shall a person charged be
convicted upon his plea without sufficient evidence to support the same.
The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in such case consents in
writing, in open court, to waive the appearance, confrontation, and
cross-examination of witnesses, and further consents either to an oral
stipulation of the evidence and testimony or to the introduction of
testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and any other
documentary evidence in support of the judgment of the court. Such
waiver and consent must be approved by the court in writing, and be filed
in the file of the papers of the cause. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 1.15).
4
there is evidence offered to support the guilty plea. Menefee v. State, 287
S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). When the defendant enters a
guilty plea, there is no requirement that the supporting evidence prove
the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ex parte Martin, 747
S.W.2d at 792. Rather, in reviewing the sufficiency of the State’s
evidence, a reviewing court will affirm the trial court’s judgment if the
evidence embraces every essential element of the offense charged. Stone
v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A conviction
rendered without sufficient evidence to support a guilty plea
constitutes trial error. Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 14.
D. Discussion
The indictment here alleged that Mr. Billingsley did
then and there intentionally or knowingly cause serious bodily injury
to [Q.S.]. . .by penetrating the female sexual organ, anus, or mouth of
[Q.S.] with the [appellant's penis, thereby causing [Q.S.] to contract the
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). . .against the peace and dignity
of the State.
(C.R. 7-9). “Serious bodily injury” means “bodily injury that creates a
substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent
disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(46) (West
5
Supp. 2014). Although Mr. Billingsley pled guilty to “each and every
act” alleged in the indictment, the court of appeals apparently operated
under the assumption that contracting HIV is per se “serious bodily
injury,” as the indictment contains no further elaboration regarding any
connection between HIV and “serious bodily injury.” Neither the Fort
Worth Court of Appeals2 nor the Court of Criminal Appeals have held
that contracting HIV is “serious bodily injury.” 3 The lack of any
principled connection to the essential element of “serious bodily
injury” can be illustrated here by substituting the word “flu” for
2
Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, this
case was transferred to the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Eastland by the
Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex.
Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001 (West 2013). The Eleventh Court of Appeals by
rule was required to follow the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals
in deciding this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
3
But see generally Mathonican v. State, 194 S.W.3d 59, 69–71 (Tex.
App.–Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (finding defendant’s HIV-positive seminal
fluid was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury); Degrate v.
State, No. 05–04–00218–CR, 2005 WL 165182, at *2, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS
547, at *4–8 (Tex. App.–Dallas Jan.26, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (finding legally and factually sufficient
evidence that the mouth of an HIV-positive defendant was a deadly
weapon when defendant bit the complainant); Najera v. State, 955 S.W.2d
698, 700–01 (Tex. App.–Austin 1997, no pet.) (finding legally and factually
sufficient evidence that defendant’s penis and seminal fluids were capable
of causing death); Weeks v. State, 834 S.W.2d 559, 561–65 (Tex.
App.–Eastland 1992, pet. ref’d) (finding evidence was sufficient to sustain
HIV-positive defendant’s attempted murder conviction for spitting at
complainant).
6
“human immunodeficiency virus,” as nowhere in the record is it shown
that “human immunodeficiency virus” is any more likely than the
common flu to cause “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of
death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or
protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or
organ.” See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(46).
As such, the court of appeals should not have held that sufficient
evidence was admitted to support Mr. Billingsley’s plea, as the
essential element of “serious bodily injury” is not supported.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner respectfully
prays that this Court grant discretionary review and allow each party
to fully brief and argue the issues before the Court of Criminal
Appeals, and that upon reviewing the judgment entered below, that
this Court reverse the opinion of the Eleventh Court of Appeals and
reverse the conviction entered below.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Abe Factor
Abe Factor
TBN: 06768500
Factor, Campbell & Collins
7
Attorneys at Law
5719 Airport Freeway
Fort Worth, Texas 76117
Phone: (817) 222-3333
Fax: (817) 222-3330
Email: lawfactor@yahoo.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
Jimmy Bernard Billingley
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the word count for the portion of this filing
covered by Rule 9.4(i)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is
2,124.
/s/Abe Factor
Abe Factor
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
instrument has been furnished to counsel for the State’s Prosecuting
Attorney and the Tarrant County District Attorney by a manner
compliant with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, on this 30th
day of March , 2015.
/s/Abe Factor
Abe Factor
8
APPENDIX
1. Opinion of the Eleventh Court of Appeals.
9
Opinion filed February 27, 2015
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-13-00052-CR
__________
JIMMY BERNARD BILLINGSLEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1235745D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jimmy Bernard Billingsley entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of
aggravated assault. Upon accepting his plea, the trial court found him guilty of the
offense and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of fifteen years. In a single
issue, Appellant challenges his conviction by arguing that the evidence in support
of his guilty plea was insufficient under TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.15
(West 2005). We affirm.
Background
Appellant was charged in a four-count indictment with committing various
forms of assault by transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to Q.S.
Appellant pleaded guilty to Count Four of the indictment.1 Count Four alleged that
Appellant intentionally or knowingly committed assault by causing serious bodily
injury to Q.S. by causing her to contract HIV. Appellant executed a “Judicial
Confession” whereupon he swore under oath that he had read the indictment “filed
in this case and [he] committed each and every act alleged therein, except those
acts waived by the State.” At the plea hearing, Appellant testified that he was
pleading guilty because he was guilty “and for no other reason.”
Analysis
Appellant contends that his guilty plea was void because the State did not
present sufficient evidence under Article 1.15 that he caused serious bodily injury
by the transmission of HIV. In support of his argument, Appellant cites various
publications that were not presented to the trial court; he asserts that the
transmission of HIV should not be considered per se serious bodily injury today
because of medical advancements in the treatment of the disease and the stigma
presented by such a characterization. The State responds by arguing that
Appellant’s judicial confession alone satisfied the requirements of Article 1.15.
We agree with the State’s contention.
When a criminal defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleads
guilty, he waives his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence under the
traditional standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Ex parte
1
At the plea hearing, the trial court stated that Appellant pleaded guilty to “Count Five.”
Appellant acknowledges in his brief, however, that he actually pleaded guilty to Count Four in the
indictment.
Martin, 747 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). However, when a
defendant pleads guilty before the trial court to a noncapital felony offense, a
conviction is not authorized under Article 1.15 unless there is evidence offered to
support the guilty plea. Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009). When the defendant enters a guilty plea, there is no requirement that the
supporting evidence prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ex parte Martin, 747 S.W.2d at 792; Staggs v. State, 314 S.W.3d 155, 159 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.); McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Rather, in reviewing the sufficiency of the
State’s evidence, we will affirm the trial court’s judgment if the evidence embraces
every essential element of the offense charged. Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424,
427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A conviction rendered without sufficient evidence to
support a guilty plea constitutes trial error. Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 14.
A person commits aggravated assault by committing an assault that causes
serious bodily injury to another. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(1) (West
2011). “‘Serious bodily injury’ means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk
of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss
or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Id. § 1.07(a)(46)
(West Supp. 2014). The indictment alleged in Count Four that Appellant “caused
serious bodily injury to [Q.S.]” by “causing [Q.S.] to contract human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV).” Appellant contends that the State failed to
present evidence that he caused serious bodily injury by transmitting HIV to Q.S.
However, Appellant judicially confessed to this element of the offense by
confessing to “each and every act alleged” in the indictment. A judicial confession
will suffice to support a guilty plea as long as the confession covers all of the
elements of the charged offense. Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at 13. We conclude that
Appellant’s judicial confession covered all of the elements of the charged offense,
including the element challenged by Appellant on appeal. We overrule
Appellant’s sole issue.
This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JOHN M. BAILEY
JUSTICE
February 27, 2015
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
3/31/2015 Envelope Details
Print this page
Envelope 4691878
Case Information
Location Court Of Criminal Appeals
Date Filed 03/30/2015 01:27:52 PM
Case Number
Case Description
Lower Court Number
Assigned to Judge
Attorney Abe Factor
Firm Name Factor & Campbell
Filed By Tess Bruner
Filer Type Not Applicable
Fees
Convenience Fee $0.00
Total Court Case Fees $0.00
Total Court Filing Fees $0.00
Total Court Service Fees $0.00
Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00
Total Service Tax Fees $0.00
Total Provider Service Fees $0.00
Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00
Grand Total $0.00
Payment
Account Name Factor & Campbell
Transaction Amount $0.00
Transaction Response
Transaction ID 7714072
Order # 0046918780
Petition for Discretionary Review
Filing Type EFileAndServe
Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review
Filing Description Petition for Discretionary Review
Reference Number
Comments
Status Rejected
Fees
Court Fee $0.00
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=913406b311834811aa9f19f7bb1186d5 1/2
3/31/2015 Envelope Details
Service Fee $0.00
Rejection Information
Rejection
Time Rejection Comment
Reason
The petition for discretionary review does not contain the identity of Judge,
03/31/2015 Parties and Counsel in compliance with [Rule 68.4(a)]; it is missing the identity of
Other 03:30:11 the trial court judge. There is a typo in your court of appeals case number: 0113
PM 00052CR. You have ten days to tender a corrected petition for discretionary
review.
Documents
Lead Document Billingsley PDR.pdf [Original]
eService Details
Date/Time
Name/Email Firm Service Type Status Served
Opened
State
Lisa C. McMinn
Prosecuting EServe Sent Yes Not Opened
information@spa.texas.gov
Attorney
Debra Windsor
State of Texas EServe Sent Yes Not Opened
coaappellatealerts@tarrantcounty.com
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=913406b311834811aa9f19f7bb1186d5 2/2