Anthony Lamar Harvey v. State, 367 S.W.3d 513

Harvey pled guilty twice to the same aggravated robbery charge in open pleas.
After the first plea, the court recessed to obtain a presentence report; the State later notified intent to enhance punishment.
The State reminded the court of the enhancement after the initial admonishments.
Harvey received a second admonishment and entered a second guilty plea.
The trial court did not accept the first plea; jeopardy attached only when a plea is accepted.
Court holds Ortiz governs, finding jeopardy attaches on acceptance of a plea, not merely upon the first adjudication; first plea never accepted, so no double jeopardy violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second plea violated double jeopardy	Harvey argues the second plea constitutes successive punishment for the same offense	State contends jeopardy attached only when the first plea was accepted	Second plea does not violate double jeopardy; first plea not accepted, so no jeopardy

Ortiz v. State, 933 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (jeopardy attaches when the court accepts the plea)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court 1977) (jeopardy protects a defendant's right to trial before a tribunal)
Ex parte Fierro, 79 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (double jeopardy considerations in plea-related contexts)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (Supreme Court 1977) (double jeopardy includes multiple punishments)
Lewis v. State, 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (double jeopardy consequences in plea proceedings)
Scholtes v. State, 691 S.W.2d 84 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985) (jeopardy requires prior jeopardy when accused placed in jeopardy)