Gerald Wilson Thomas v. the State of Texas
03-19-00471-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Gerald Wilson Thomas pled guilty before a jury to an indictment charging aggravated assault against a family member with a deadly weapon (knife) for stabbing his wife.
- The jury found him guilty and, at punishment, found two prior felony-enhancement paragraphs true and assessed punishment at 99 years’ imprisonment.
- The State had amended the indictment at trial to delete the allegation of "serious" bodily injury, so the charged offense was the second-degree aggravated-assault offense (with deadly weapon).
- Evidence at punishment included the victim’s testimony and injuries and proof of two out-of-state felony convictions (Arizona 2009; California 2014) used to enhance under Texas habitual-offender law.
- Thomas appealed, raising (1) cruel-and-unusual-sentence, (2) ineffective assistance for failure to object to sentence, (3) illegal enhancement, (4) need to correct the judgment to reflect a second-degree offense, and (5) that the judgment improperly includes a deadly-weapon finding the jury did not expressly make.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Cruel and unusual punishment | Sentence of 99 years is disproportionate and unconstitutional. | Thomas failed to preserve the complaint by not objecting at punishment or when sentence pronounced. | Forfeited; issue not preserved. |
| 2. Ineffective assistance for failing to object to sentence | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the unconstitutional sentence. | Record is silent; sentence was within statutory range once enhancements proved; no deficient performance shown. | Denied: no deficient performance shown on silent record; no need to reach prejudice. |
| 3. Illegal enhancement | Thomas contends prior out-of-state convictions were equivalent to lower offenses and could not enhance under §12.42(b). | Out-of-state convictions exposed defendant to penitentiary/prison terms and are classed as felonies for enhancement under §12.41(1). | Overruled: Arizona and California convictions properly used to enhance. |
| 4. Degree of offense on judgment | Judgment incorrectly labels offense as first-degree felony. | State agrees the charged offense was second-degree aggravated assault (enhanced for punishment). | Modified judgment: Degree corrected to "Second-Degree Felony Enhanced to Habitual Offender (25 Years to 99 Years or Life)" and statute set to 22.02(a)(2). |
| 5. Deadly-weapon finding on judgment | Jury never made an express deadly-weapon finding; judgment improperly includes it. | Thomas failed to object at trial or file motion for new trial; issue not preserved (and he does not challenge sufficiency). | Forfeited; overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burt v. State, 396 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (preservation requirement for sentencing complaints)
- Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (failure to object forfeits cruel-and-unusual claim)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- Ex parte Blume, 618 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (classification of out-of-state convictions for enhancement)
- Davis v. State, 645 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (out-of-state convictions punishable by penitentiary treated as third-degree felonies for enhancement)
- Samuel v. State, 477 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (punishment within statutory limits is not cruel or unusual)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may reform judgments when record supports correction)