Donaldson, Patricia, PD-0572-14

Background

Patricia Donaldson pleaded guilty to two state-jail felonies (making a false statement to obtain property/credit and tampering with a governmental record) and orally/writtenly pleaded "true" to two enhancement paragraphs alleging two prior felony convictions.
The trial court admitted Petitioner’s written judicial confessions, stipulations, and pen packets without objection, but expressly declined to make an oral finding as to the second enhancement paragraph at sentencing.
The trial court sentenced Donaldson to 10 years (false-statement count) and 5 years (tampering count), within the enhanced range the State sought under Tex. Penal Code § 12.425(b).
On initial appeal the Fifth Court of Appeals found the sentences void for lack of an explicit "true" finding and remanded for a new punishment hearing; on rehearing it withdrew that opinion and affirmed the sentences.
The State’s position (brief summarized here) is that Donaldson’s pleas of "true" operated as judicial admissions that satisfied the State’s burden, so the sentences were authorized and any omission of an explicit finding was immaterial because the record affirmatively reflects the enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Donaldson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether sentences are void because the trial court did not expressly find an enhancement paragraph "true"	Trial court’s failure to make an explicit "true" finding means enhanced sentences are void/outside applicable range	Donaldson pleaded "true" and the court accepted the pleas; the plea and record satisfy the State’s burden so sentences are authorized	Court of Appeals on rehearing affirmed: the record and pleas support modification/affirmance without an express oral finding
Whether a defendant’s plea of "true" relieves the State of proving enhancement facts	Plea does not automatically substitute for a judicial finding needed to authorize enhanced punishment	A "true" plea is a judicial admission that removes the State’s burden except when the enhancement is later shown false or legally unavailable	Plea generally substitutes for proof; absent falsity or legal impediment the plea authorizes enhanced sentence
Whether concurrent/overlapping sentencing history undermines § 12.425(b) sequencing requirement	Concurrent service language might mean the prior conviction was not "final" for enhancement purposes	Finality, not how sentences ran, controls; records show the federal conviction became final before the later state conviction	The State may rely on finality shown by pen packets; concurrent-served sentencing language does not negate § 12.425(b) applicability
Whether appellate courts may implicitly find enhancement facts from the record	Appellate courts cannot supply factual findings the trial court declined to make	Appellate courts may affirm or modify judgments on any legal theory supported by the record and may implicitly give effect to unchallenged pleas and admitted exhibits	Appellate court may implicitly recognize findings reflected in the record and affirm the sentence

Key Cases Cited

Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (illegal sentence outside statutory range is unauthorized and correctable)
Ex parte Sewell, 742 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (plea of true removes State’s burden to prove enhancement)
Dinn v. State, 570 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (defendant’s plea of true satisfies proof of enhancement)
Wilson v. State, 671 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (State must show prior conviction was final and defendant was same person unless defendant pleads true)
Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (limitations on when a plea of true cannot substitute for proof)
Roberson v. State, 420 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (finding preserved despite faulty jury instructions does not necessarily invalidate enhancement)
Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (legislative intent to punish repeat offenders more severely)
Gabel v. McCotter, 803 F.2d 814 (5th Cir. 1986) (federal conviction finality and its evidentiary effect)