Anthony Bernard Wingfield v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12080

In June 2013 Anthony Wingfield was charged with assault against a household member; jury convicted and the jury assessed punishment under repeat-offender sentencing for an effective 45-year sentence.
Victim Angela Dickerson testified Wingfield punched her in the face; her brother corroborated hearing the assault; photos of the injury were admitted.
The State sought to elevate the misdemeanor assault to a third-degree felony under Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(A) by proving a prior 2012 Dallas County conviction for "assault FV."
The 2012 Dallas County judgment listed the offense as "assault FV" but contained a circled "No" on the separate statutory line for an affirmative family-violence finding under Art. 42.013.
Wingfield moved for directed verdict (insufficiency) on the prior-conviction element and later moved to quash the indictment alleging prosecutorial vindictiveness after the State withdrew a previously stated plea offer of two years.
Trial court denied both motions; on appeal the court (Amarillo) affirmed, holding the 2012 conviction could satisfy § 22.01(b)(2)(A) despite the absence of an affirmative Art. 42.013 finding and rejecting the vindictiveness claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of prior-conviction proof to enhance assault to felony under § 22.01(b)(2)(A)	State: proof of prior ‘‘assault FV’’ conviction and that victim was a household member satisfies statutory enhancement	Wingfield: the 2012 judgment’s circled "No" on the Art. 42.013 family-violence line prevents using that conviction for enhancement	Held: The plain language of § 22.01(b)(2)(A) does not require an Art. 42.013 affirmative finding; conviction for an offense under chapter 22 against a household member is sufficient; issue overruled
Prosecutorial vindictiveness for withdrawing a plea offer	Wingfield: prosecutor’s withdrawal of the two-year offer before stated deadline was vindictive and entitles him to relief	State: withdrew based on victim’s renewed commitment to testify truthfully; plea offers are contractual and not binding until court acceptance	Held: No actual vindictiveness shown; offer was not a binding plea agreement absent court acceptance; motion to quash denied

Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reviewing sufficiency with deferential standard)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate duty to ensure evidence supports conviction)
State v. Eakins, 71 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.—Austin) (prior-judgment family-violence finding not the exclusive means to prove prior qualifying conviction)
Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for proving prosecutorial vindictiveness)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (Supreme Court) (plea-bargain/due-process context)
Ex parte Moussazadeh, 64 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plea bargain is contract between State and defendant)
Moore v. State, 295 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plea agreement binding only after court acceptance)