Cotten, Matthew C
WR-82,830-04
| Tex. App. | Mar 3, 2015

Background

  • Applicant Matthew Cotten (pro se, TDCJ) challenges punishment in multiple Tarrant County causes (five related cause numbers) via state habeas filings dated Jan. 4, 2015 and a traverse filed Feb. 25, 2015.
  • At the bench punishment hearing the court pronounced 30-year sentences in four causes and 20 years in one cause, and stated the enhancements were found true. The reporter’s record and judgment entries reflect the applicant pleaded or was found "true" to only one enhancement paragraph.
  • The State did not introduce certified judgments of prior convictions at punishment; the prosecutor asked the court to take judicial notice of the presentence investigation (PSI) and rested. The PSI did not contain certified prior-judgment copies.
  • Applicant contends (grounds 1–3) the habitual-offender enhancement is unsupported by legally sufficient evidence under Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(d), Article 1.15 and due process, rendering his enhanced sentences illegal/void.
  • Applicant contends (grounds 4–5) Detective Anderson failed to give the full Miranda warning under Art. 38.22 §3(a)(2) and coerced statements by threats; he argues these Miranda/due-process theories are new and not precluded by direct-appeal litigation.
  • The habeas trial court issued a brief memorandum/finding recommending denial: it treated the judicial confession/waiver as "some evidence" for enhancement and held the Miranda/due‑process grounds not cognizable because litigated on direct appeal. Applicant seeks the Court of Criminal Appeals to reject those findings and remand for a new punishment hearing or new trial.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Cotten) Defendant's Argument (State) Held (Habeas court / Applicant request)
1. Excessive/illegal sentence due to only one enhancement found true Record and judgment show only one enhancement plea/finding; sentencing as habitual offender (30 years) is unsupported Indictment alleged two priors and trial court found priors true; 30 years is within statutory habitual range Habeas court: denied relief (sentence not excessive). Applicant: urges CCA to overrule and remand for punishment hearing.
2–3. Lack of evidence for enhancement (§ 12.42(d)) / due process State presented no admissible proof (no certified prior judgments; PSI inadmissible); judicial confession/waiver alone insufficient under Article 1.15 and controlling cases State: judicial confession and waiver/stipulations provide some evidentiary support Habeas court: found judicial confession provides some evidence and recommended denial. Applicant: argues legal authorities require certified judgments and seeks remand.
4. Miranda/Art. 38.22 §3(a)(2) violation Detective failed to read the full Miranda warning required by statute; this is a distinct constitutional/fundamental-error theory not raised on direct appeal State: Miranda claim not cognizable on habeas because litigated on direct appeal Habeas court: found claims not cognizable as litigated on direct appeal. Applicant: contends the habeas theory is new and fundamental and asks CCA to find it cognizable and remand.
5. Coercion / due process (threats) Detective threatened physical harm to coerce a statement; this is a constitutional due-process claim not previously presented State: claim not cognizable on habeas because litigated on direct appeal Habeas court: found not cognizable. Applicant: asserts new evidence/theory creates exception and asks CCA to remand.

Key Cases Cited

  • Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (state must present evidence supporting enhancement allegations under § 12.42(d))
  • Cole v. State, 611 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (punishment enhancement must be supported by proof corresponding to allegations)
  • Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App. 2003) (proof must correspond with enhancement allegations)
  • Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (clarifying enhancement proof requirements)
  • Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (conviction cannot rest on plea without sufficient evidence)
  • Messer v. State, 729 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (state must introduce judgments for enhancement via stipulation)
  • Garcia v. State, 930 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (PSI without certified judgments is insufficient proof of prior convictions)
  • Ex parte Brown, 757 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (requirements for proving prior convictions for enhancement)
  • Ex parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (habeas exception where new evidence/theory shows fundamental error)
  • Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (habeas cognizable for fundamental constitutional errors)
  • Ex parte Russell, 738 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (habeas relief for void prior convictions)
  • Ex parte Bravo, 702 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (habeas relief for certain fundamental trial errors)
  • Ex parte Clark, 597 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (habeas relief where trial court failed to apply law to facts)
Read the full case