Cotten, Matthew C, WR-82,830-01

Background

Applicant Matthew Cotten (pro se) filed multiple state habeas applications challenging punishment and confession issues in five consolidated Tarrant County causes.
At sentencing the trial court imposed 30-year sentences on four causes and 20 years on one; the judgment/punishment record shows the applicant admitted “true” to an enhancement only once and the court announced that enhancements were found true across causes.
At the punishment hearing the prosecutor asked the court to take judicial notice of the presentence investigation (PSI) and did not introduce certified judgments of prior convictions or other documentary proof of the alleged priors.
Applicant argues the State presented no admissible evidence to support the habitual-offender enhancements required by Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(d), rendering the enhanced sentences illegal/void.
Applicant also contends his first statement was obtained in violation of Miranda/Article 38.22 (failure to give the full warning) and was coerced by threats of physical harm; these claims were litigated on direct appeal but applicant says he raises new theories and evidence creating an exception to the procedural bar.
The habeas trial court issued a Memorandum/Findings recommending denial of relief, finding (1) the judicial confession provided some evidence to support enhancement and (2) the Miranda/due-process claims were not cognizable because litigated on direct appeal. Applicant now traverses those findings and asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant relief (set aside sentences and remand for new punishment hearings, or reverse/remand for a new trial).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cotten)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (Habeas court recommendation / applicant request)
Sufficiency of evidence for §12.42(d) enhancements	No admissible evidence of priors was offered at punishment; judgment and reporter’s record show only one “true” plea; judicial confession alone is insufficient — applicant was deprived of due process.	Indictment alleged two priors; court found priors true; judicial confession and stipulations supply some evidentiary support so enhancement is proper.	Habeas court recommended denial, finding the judicial confession provided some evidence; applicant asks CCA to overrule and remand for new punishment hearing.
Legality of sentence / excessive punishment	Sentence is illegal/void because record reflects only one enhancement was found true, so habitual-offender range was not established.	Sentence is within habitual-offender statutory range because court found both priors true.	Habeas court recommended denial; applicant asks CCA to set aside sentence and remand.
Use of PSI / stipulations to prove priors	PSI did not contain certified prior judgments; stipulations/judicial confession without certified judgments are insufficient to prove final convictions for enhancement (Art. 1.15; case law).	There is some record support (confession, waivers, stipulations) that suffices in the habeas court’s view.	Habeas court found confession/stipulations provided some evidence; applicant urges error and requests remand for proper proof.
Miranda / voluntariness of statement; procedural bar	Detective failed to read the full Article 38.22 Miranda warning and threatened applicant; applicant raises new theories/evidence not presented on direct appeal, so habeas review is cognizable.	Claims were litigated and rejected on direct appeal; therefore they are not cognizable on habeas.	Habeas court held the claims not cognizable as litigated on direct appeal; applicant contends the habeas claims advance new theories/evidence and asks CCA to remand for merits adjudication or new trial.

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 cannot be legally enhanced where proof fails to correspond with enhancement allegations)
Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (explaining requirements for proving enhancement allegations)
Garcia v. State, 930 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (PSI inadmissible to prove prior convictions when it lacks certified judgments)
Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (a conviction cannot rest on a plea without sufficient evidence to support it)
Messer v. State, 729 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (requirements for using stipulations/judgments to prove prior convictions for enhancement)
Ex parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (habeas cognizability exception when new evidence/theory presented post‑appeal)
Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (same: habeas review permissible for fundamental constitutional claims with new evidence/theory)
Ex parte Russell, 738 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (habeas may address jurisdictional or fundamental errors despite prior appeal)