Cody Lang Thomas v. State, 06-14-00110-CR

Appellant Cody Lang Thomas was indicted for engaging in organized criminal activity; he pled guilty to the lesser included offense of theft valued $1,500–$20,000 (a state‑jail felony under Tex. Penal Code §12.35(a)).
At plea/punishment proceedings Thomas admitted two prior felony convictions and pled true to two enhancement allegations; the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment.
One prior conviction was Burglary of a Building (normally a state‑jail felony under §30.02 and §12.35(a)) that had previously been enhanced under the former §12.42(a) so the prior sentence was for a third‑degree felony.
The State and trial court relied on Tex. Penal Code §12.425(b) to elevate Thomas’s current state‑jail felony punishment range to that of a second‑degree felony based on his prior convictions, producing the 20‑year sentence.
Appellant argues the prior burglary remains a §12.35(a) state‑jail felony for enhancement‑analysis purposes because the former §12.42(a) language "shall be punished for" increases punishment only, not the statutory offense grade; therefore §12.425(b) does not apply and the 20‑year sentence is unauthorized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant)	Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court)	Held
Whether the trial court sentenced outside the lawful punishment range by using §12.425(b) to elevate a §12.35(a) state‑jail felony to 2nd‑degree based on prior convictions	The prior burglary, though previously punished as a 3rd‑degree after §12.42(a) enhancement, remains a §12.35(a) state‑jail offense for future‑enhancement purposes; §12.425(b) requires two prior felonies other than §12.35(a) state‑jail felonies, so it does not apply; the 20‑year sentence is unauthorized and should be vacated	The trial court treated the prior burglary as no longer a §12.35(a) state‑jail felony because it had been enhanced and punished as a third‑degree felony, thus qualifying as a non‑§12.35(a) felony under §12.425(b) to elevate current punishment	Appellant asks the court of appeals to reverse and remand for a new punishment hearing; he relies on controlling precedent (Ford/Webb/Reinke) that ‘‘shall be punished for’’ language increases punishment but not offense grade, so the prior burglary should be treated as a §12.35(a) conviction and §12.425(b) is inapplicable

Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ("shall be punished for" language increases punishment range only, not the statutory grade of the offense)
Ex parte Reinke, 370 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reaffirming Ford/Webb that enhancement phrasing increases punishment, not offense level)
State v. Webb, 12 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (construction that §12.42 increases punishment range rather than the severity grade)
Williams v. State, 253 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation standards; de novo review)
Clinton v. State, 354 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (textualist approach to statutory construction)
Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant’s right to be sentenced within legally prescribed range is absolute and unwaivable)