OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Appellant entered a plea of “no contest” to the charge of attempted murder. The trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to sixteen years confinement. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding that Appellant’s stipulation to the evidence, entered pursuant to Article 1.15 V.A.C.C.P., was inadequate to support the conviction. ^[1] Stone v. State, 909 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1995) (opinion on rehearing). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to decide whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the evidence was insufficient to support Appellant’s plea of nolo contendere in the absence of a stipulation regarding the veracity of the State’s witnesses.

In support of the Court of Appeals’ holding, the court observed that the plea papers only stipulate as to what the witnesses would testify, not that their testimony would be true. ^[2] The Court concluded, “A stipulation that certain testimony would be offered is not a stipulation that the testimony is true.” Id. at 572, citing, Pine v. State, 872 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1994, no pet.). Pine in turn, cites only Bourland v. State, 502 S.W.2d 8 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), as authority for this position. ^[3]

[*426] Without addressing the merits of either Pine or Bowrland, we find those eases distinguishable. Pine and Bourland involved pleas of not guilty and a trial before the court based on an agreed stipulation of the evidence. Neither appellate court addressed Art. 1.15 in making its determination that the stipulated evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.

This Court has routinely found that a stipulation as to what witnesses would testify had they been present at trial is sufficient to support a conviction in the context of Art. 1.15. In Brewster v. State, 606 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), the defendant signed a modified form stipulation agreeing that if the witnesses were present and sworn to testify, they would testify that on the day and place in question the defendant did intentionally and knowingly possess a controlled substance. On appeal, the defendant alleged the stipulated evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt upon a plea of nolo contendere. This Court found the stipulation sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of guilt, observing:

While the legal effect of a plea of nolo contendere is the same as a plea of guilty, the defensive posture of the accused — “I will not contest the accusation” — is slightly different from the stance of the guilty pleading accused — “I admit my guilt of the accusation.” Consistent with that nice distinction our appellants, apparently unwilling to confess their guilt, made it known to the trial court that they did not contest the testimony they stipulated under oath “the witnesses” the State could produce would give in open court. That procedure, when properly founded in compliance with Article 1.15, V.A.C.C.P., provides evidence supporting a resultant conviction.

Id. at 329 (citations and footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). This Court noted that Art. 1.15 applies whether the stipulation relates to what a witness would testify or to the truth of the allegations in the indictment.

In Robinson v. State, 739 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. Cr.App.1987), this Court explained:

[1]t is settled that, as a matter of Texas criminal law, the term “stipulation,” at least as used in Art. 1.15 ... includes inter alia agreements as to what particular evidence or testimony would be, if presented in full in open court, without conceding the truthfulness of that evidence or otherwise waiving the need for proof.

Robinson, 739 S.W.2d at 800 n. 5 (italics in original) (emphasis added). See also, Ellard v. State, 650 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (stipulation that “without admitting the truth of any of the allegations, the State’s witnesses would testify as to facts that if believed, would satisfy on the elements of proof in the indictment,” sufficient to support the trial court’s finding the defendant was guilty).

Other courts of appeals have consistently followed precedent from this Court and similarly ruled that a defendant pleading “no contest” must only stipulate that he does not contest the fact that the witnesses would testify that he committed the alleged offense. See e.g., Rosenkrans v. State, 758 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, pet. ref'd); McKinney v. State, 709 S.W.2d 328 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th] 1986, no pet.). In fact, when a defendant actually does stipulate to the truth of the witness’ testimony, this Court has held such an admission to constitute a judicial confession. Waage v. State, 456 S.W.2d 388, 389 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). If a defendant who pleads nolo contendere were required to concede the veracity of the stipu[*427] lated testimony, every stipulation of evidence would become a judicial confession. This would destroy any benefit a defendant may realize from pleading nolo contendere rather than guilty, and blur any significant distinction between the two methods of presenting sufficient evidence on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. As stated by Justice Edelman in his dissent, “Article 1.15 is simply a means for a defendant to waive a trial and, correspondingly, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. In order to be convicted under this alternative, a defendant need not admit the truth of the prosecution evidence, any more so than he would to be convicted at trial.” Stone, 909 S.W.2d at 574.

In the instant case, the stipulated testimony of the witnesses embraced every essential element of the offense charged and was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of Appellant. As such, it was adequate to support Appellant’s plea and the finding of guilt under Art. 1.15. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court to consider Appellant’s remaining points of error.