Gerardo Pedraza v. State, 05-13-01391-CR

Pedraza was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
The State alleged an enhancement based on Pedraza’s October 2011 burglary conviction.
The indictment and jury charge listed only the October 2011 burglary as the enhancement predicate; other prior convictions were offered in a stipulation.
During trial, Pedraza’s attorney asked the court to admonish him; the court explained punishment ranges with enhancement and possible stacking.
The State read the enhancement paragraph; Pedraza’s attorney stated “true” on Pedraza’s behalf, and Pedraza later affirmed understanding of the admonishments.
The jury ultimately found the enhancement true, and the court read the full enhancement to determine punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pedraza validly pled true to the enhancement	Pedraza did not personally plead to enhancement.	Pedraza’s attorney acted on his behalf to plead true.	Record shows Pedraza pled true through his attorney; no error.

Tindel v. State, 830 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (attorney can plead for defendant on enhancement when no objection is made)
Jones v. State, 111 S.W.3d 600 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (read enhancement without personal plea if attorney acts and no objections)