Francisco Javier Escobar v. State, 05-13-01720-CR

Francisco Javier Escobar pled guilty and judicially confessed to two offenses: continuous family violence (F11-71776) and enhanced assault–family violence (F13-59278).
Continuous-violence indictment alleged two acts against Ericka Alvarez within a 12-month-or-less period (Sept 11, 2011 and Nov 5, 2010); punishment later assessed at eight years.
While sentencing on the continuous-violence case was pending, Escobar was indicted for assault on Aug 20, 2013; the indictment enhanced the assault to a felony based on two prior misdemeanor assault convictions (MA12-70684 and MA10-68445).
Trial court imposed concurrent eight-year sentences (and a $3,000 fine on the enhanced assault) and ordered no contact with Alvarez.
On appeal, Escobar argued the convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the prior misdemeanors used for enhancement may have been the same acts charged as part of the continuous-violence conviction.
The record did not contain judgments or dates for the prior misdemeanor convictions; the court found additional evidence was needed to show an undisputed double jeopardy violation and that Escobar forfeited the claims by not raising them at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convicting Escobar of both continuous family violence and enhanced assault–family violence violates double jeopardy	Escobar: Both convictions rest in part on the same predicate misdemeanor (MA12-70684), so he received multiple punishments for the same conduct	State: The record does not show that the prior misdemeanor(s) were the same acts encompassed by the continuous-violence period; enhancement predicates are alleged but not proven to overlap	Court: No double jeopardy on the face of the record; claim forfeited because appellant did not preserve it at trial and the record lacks undisputed facts showing a violation
Whether continuous-violence conviction conflicts with use of MA10-68445 as a predicate for enhancement	Escobar: MA10-68445 could have been one of the acts forming the continuous-violence offense, yielding impermissible multiple punishment	State: No record evidence that MA10-68445 occurred within the continuous-violence time window; mere case numbers are speculative	Court: Record insufficient to show an apparent double jeopardy violation; appellant forfeited the issue

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (Double jeopardy forbids multiple punishments for the same offense)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (Double jeopardy incorporated against the states)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (Double jeopardy prevents greater punishment than legislature intended)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Same elements test for determining same offense)
Langs v. State, 183 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Double jeopardy raised first on appeal allowed only if apparent on record and procedural default serves no legitimate interest)
Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640 (Appellant must generally preserve double jeopardy objection at trial)
Ex Parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Record must clearly show double jeopardy without need for further evidence)