Full opinion text
HARPER, J. Appellant was prosecuted, charged with forging the following check: Dallas, Texas, 10 — 13 1913, No. 183. Guaranty State Bank & Trust Co. 32 — 14 Pay to the order of Jessie Norton $18.50/100 Eighteen 50/100 .Dollars Star Bakery, W. M. Schliepake. • When the case was called, after being duly warned and instructed as required by law, she entered a plea of guilty. The only evidence introduced by the state was the following : W. A. Ball testified he was salesman for Henry Pollock Trunk Company; -that as such salesman, he waited on appellant, and she gave him the cheek, and she at that time claimed her name was Jessie Norton. W. M. Schliepake testified that he did not sign the check, nor authorize any one else to sign his name to it. The record does not disclose that the check was introduced in evidence, but it is manifest that it was shown to the witnesses in the presence of the jury, and that she entered a plea of guilty to forging the check set out in the indictment. The only question presented is: Is this sufficient testimony to support a judgment on a plea of guilty. Article 555, C. C. P., provides that, where a person charged with felony enters a plea of guilty, if the punishment of the offense is not absolutely fixed by law, and beyond the discretion of the jury to graduate, a jury shall be impaneled to assess the punishment, and evidence submitted thereon to enable them to decide thereupon.' While this statute has been held to be mandatory, and this court has said that it is not merely for the benefit of the defendant, but that it was also intended to safeguard the interests of the state, yet in Doans v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 37 S. W. 751, it was held that, where the defendant entered a plea of guilty, he cannot urge the insufficiency of the evidence, if the record discloses that evidence was introduced tending to connect him with the offense. As the jury assessed against the appellant the lowest penalty authorized by law, she will not be heard to complain that the evidence adduced did not conclusively show her guilt. In connection with her plea of guilty, it did sufficiently tend to show her connection with the offense charged, forging the check described in the indictment, signed W. M. Schliepake, who testified he signed no such check. This will support the verdict. The judgment is affirmed.