Billy Joe Garza v. State, 383 S.W.3d 673

Garza was convicted of aggravated robbery and a prior-enhancement was found true, resulting in an 85-year sentence.
The indictment for the offense did not include an enhancement paragraph.
The State moved to transfer and adopt prior notices across related cause numbers to apply enhancements.
During voir dire, the court explained possible punishment ranges, including enhanced ranges.
At punishment, counsel objected to enhancement due to lack of timely notice; the State argued prior notices existed.
The trial court found ample actual notice and gave a running objection; the jury ultimately found the enhancement true and imposed the 85-year term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by instructing enhancement without timely notice	Garza contends notices in other causes did not provide proper notice for this case	State contends there was ample notice across filings and at punishment	No due process violation; notice sufficient; judgment affirmed

Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due-process notice of enhancements; sufficient preparation time)
Hollins v. State, 571 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (prior convictions may be used for enhancement with proper notice)
Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (pleading enhancements; notice not necessarily in indictment)
Ketchum v. State, 199 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (minimal notice may satisfy due process; continuance may cure notice)
Hughen v. State, 265 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (due process satisfied when defendant pleads to enhancement and lacks defense; continuance not sought)
Callison v. State, 218 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007) (due process satisfied when record shows no impairment by notice timing)