Francisco Javier Escobar v. State, 05-13-01672-CR

Francisco Javier Escobar pled guilty and judicially confessed to two offenses: continuous family violence (Cause No. F11-71776) and enhanced assault–family violence (Cause No. F13-59278).
Continuous-violence indictment alleged two acts against Ericka Alvarez during a period of 12 months or less (one on or about Nov. 5, 2010; one on or about Sept. 11, 2011).
While sentencing on the continuous-violence count was pending, Escobar was indicted for assault on Aug. 20, 2013, with two prior misdemeanor assault convictions (MA12-70684 and MA10-68445) alleged for enhancement.
Trial court sentenced Escobar to eight years on each felony; imposed a $3,000 fine on the enhanced-assault count; sentences run concurrently.
On appeal Escobar argued the convictions violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause because the predicate misdemeanors alleged for enhancement overlapped with acts used in the continuous-violence conviction.

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(s) (MA12-70684 and/or MA10-68445), so he received multiple punishments for the same offense	State: Record does not show the predicate misdemeanors occurred during the same 12-month period underlying the continuous-violence offense; additional evidence is required	Affirmed. No double jeopardy violation is apparent on the face of the record; appellant forfeited the claim by failing to object at trial

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (Double Jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for the same offense)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (Double Jeopardy applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (Prohibition on multiple punishments prevents greater punishment than legislature intended)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (Same-elements test for double jeopardy analysis)
Langs v. State, 183 S.W.3d 680 (Permitting double-jeopardy claims raised on appeal only when obvious on face of record and no state interest in procedural default)
Ex Parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d 540 (Double-jeopardy claim apparent on record requires no additional evidence)
Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640 (Defendant must generally preserve double-jeopardy objection at or before submission of guilt)
Roy v. State, 76 S.W.3d 87 (Record must clearly reflect a double-jeopardy violation to raise it on appeal)
Evans v. State, 299 S.W.3d 138 (Double-jeopardy protections summarized)