Cotten, Matthew C
WR-82,830-03
| Tex. App. | Mar 3, 2015Background
- Applicant Matthew Cotten (pro se) filed state habeas applications challenging convictions in multiple Tarrant County cause numbers, seeking either a new punishment hearing or reversal and remand for new trial.
- Cotten raises five recurring claims across the causes: (1) sentence illegal/excessive because the record shows only one enhancement found true; (2) sentence void because the State presented no evidence to prove the enhancement allegations under Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(d); (3) denial of due process from absence of enhancement proof; (4) Miranda/statutory-warning violation because the officer did not read the full Article 38.22 warning; (5) coerced statement—Detective Anderson allegedly threatened physical abuse to obtain a confession.
- At punishment, the prosecutor asked the court to take judicial notice of the presentence investigation (PSI) and rested; Cotten contends the PSI did not contain certified prior judgments and no certified judgments or stipulations were introduced as required for enhancement proof.
- The habeas trial court issued a memorandum/finding adopting the State’s position and recommending denial of relief on all grounds, concluding the judicial confession supplied some evidentiary support and the Miranda/due-process claims were litigated on direct appeal and thus not cognizable.
- Cotten contests the habeas court’s findings: he argues (a) the reporter’s record and judgment show pleas/finding of only one enhancement; (b) a judicial confession or PSI without certified judgments is insufficient to prove prior convictions for enhancement; and (c) his Miranda and coercion claims raise new theories not addressed on direct appeal, creating an exception to the bar on relitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of enhancement findings to support habitual-offender sentences | Cotten: record (judgment + reporter’s record) shows he pleaded/found true to only one enhancement; sentence as habitual offender therefore illegal/excessive | State: indictment alleged two priors and trial court found priors true; 30-year sentence is within statutory range for habitual offender | Habeas court found sentence not excessive; Cotten disputes factual basis and urges CCA not to adopt habeas finding (court below gave no detailed analysis) |
| Whether State presented legally sufficient evidence of prior convictions for enhancement under §12.42(d) | Cotten: State presented no certified judgments; judicial confession and PSI without certified judgments are insufficient; thus enhancement proof absent and sentence void | State: record not totally devoid—judicial confession and stipulated waivers provide some evidentiary support | Habeas court concluded judicial confession provided some evidence; Cotten argues controlling precedent requires certified judgments or proper stipulations and urges remand for new punishment hearing |
| Cognizability of Miranda and voluntariness claims on habeas after direct appeal | Cotten: his habeas claims present new legal theories (incomplete statutory Miranda wording; coercion by threats) not litigated on appeal and implicate fundamental constitutional error, so they are cognizable | State: claims are not cognizable because they were rejected on direct appeal | Habeas court treated the claims as litigated on appeal and not cognizable; Cotten contends the habeas allegations are materially different and warrant review/remand |
| Remedy requested | Cotten: set aside sentence and remand for new punishment hearing (grounds 1–3); alternatively reverse and remand for new trial on Miranda/coercion grounds (4–5) | State: oppose relief, maintaining procedural and substantive sufficiency | Habeas court recommended denial; Cotten requests CCA to overturn that recommendation and order relief or 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 cannot be legally enhanced when proof fails to correspond to enhancement allegations)
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discussing requirements for enhancement proof)
- Garcia v. State, 930 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (PSI without certified judgments insufficient proof of final convictions for enhancement)
- Messer v. State, 729 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (stipulations and judgment copies required when plea before the court for enhancement)
- Stone v. State, 919 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (a person shall not be convicted on plea without sufficient evidence)
- Ex parte Brown, 757 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (standards for proving prior convictions for enhancement)
- Ex parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (exceptions to bar on habeas review for claims litigated on direct appeal where new evidence or jurisdictional/fundamental error exists)
- Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (habeas may be available for certain fundamental constitutional claims despite prior litigation)
- Ex parte Russell, 738 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (habeas relief may be granted for void prior convictions improperly used for enhancement)