Bridges, Troy Lee, PD-1476-15

Background

Troy Lee Bridges was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (second-degree felony) for placing a firearm to a victim’s head (trial court cause no. 17438).
After guilty verdict, Bridges elected court punishment; the State and Bridges agreed a stipulated punishment and the trial court sentenced him to 32 years’ confinement.
The State had filed notices alleging six prior felony convictions for enhancement; Bridges signed a stipulation admitting two prior felonies, including that the second prior conviction occurred after the first became final.
Bridges argued on appeal that the trial court erred in accepting the punishment agreement because the indictment/notice did not properly allege habitual-offender status, that the agreement was not knowingly/voluntarily made because he was misadvised about punishment range, and that counsel was ineffective regarding the agreement.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered waiver, notice, voluntariness, and ineffective-assistance claims and affirmed the conviction and 32-year sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court erred in accepting punishment agreement for lack of notice of habitual-offender treatment	Bridges: State did not allege that any prior conviction occurred after an earlier conviction became final, so habitual-offender treatment was not properly noticed	State: Notices and stipulation identified prior convictions by cause number/date and Bridges admitted the timing in his stipulation/open court	Court: No error — notices and the written stipulation (and Bridges’ plea/plea-in-court) supplied adequate notice and he made no request to challenge them
Punishment agreement was not knowing/voluntary because Bridges was erroneously advised about punishment range	Bridges: Court and counsel admonished him he faced a 25–99 years (or life) range when that range was not properly invoked by the indictment/notice	State: Given the admitted priors and stipulation that one prior occurred after the other, the 25–99 (or life) habitual-offender range applied; the court thoroughly admonished Bridges and he repeatedly confirmed voluntariness	Court: Overruled — admonishments were proper in light of admitted priors and Bridges answered affirmatively that his plea/agreement was voluntary
Ineffective assistance of counsel in entering the punishment agreement	Bridges: Counsel failed to object to voir dire/court/counsel admonishments and to written documents indicating habitual-offender exposure	State: Because habitual-offender treatment was properly supported by notices/stipulation, counsel’s performance was not deficient or prejudicial	Court: Overruled — no deficient performance shown because the habitual-offender range applied and no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Seals v. State, 604 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982, no pet.) (each succeeding conviction for enhancement must be subsequent in commission and conviction)
McCarter v. State, 527 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (habitual-felony statute requires successive convictions to be subsequent in commission and conviction)
Garza v. State, 383 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (notice identifying prior conviction by cause number/convicting court provides adequate notice for enhancement)
Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (accused entitled to description of prior conviction judgment sufficient to locate records and prepare defense)
Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (defendant may waive right to appeal by agreement, but waiver must appear in record)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)