Harvey Ramirez v. State, 05-16-00649-CR

Harvey Ramirez was indicted and convicted for intentionally or knowingly making a false statement on an application for a certified copy of a birth certificate; sentenced to 8 years.
Indictment alleged Ramirez falsely stated he was born in Laredo, Texas, in connection with Texas Birth Certificate No. 075462.
State's investigation found the birth certificate submitted with the application was fraudulent (file/serial number matched another person and appeared “abstracted”); Ramirez never produced the original when asked.
Ramirez testified his grandmother told him he was born in Laredo and that he obtained a birth certificate (in another name, Constancio Enriquez) to secure a marriage license; trial evidence showed he used multiple names.
Defense requested a mistake-of-fact jury instruction expanded to include Ramirez’s belief his grandmother told him he was born in Laredo; the court declined that additional language but gave a mistake-of-fact instruction limited to belief the submitted birth certificate was authentic.
Ramirez also pleaded true to an enhancement allegation (prior drug-possession conviction); he later appealed claiming the written judgment incorrectly records a true finding because the trial court never orally pronounced the enhancement true.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ramirez)	Held
Whether the jury charge misapplied mistake-of-fact by refusing Ramirez’s requested language about his grandmother’s statement	The applicable issue is whether Ramirez believed the submitted certificate was authentic; belief about birthplace alone is irrelevant	The trial court should have instructed jury that Ramirez’s belief his grandmother told him he was born in Laredo negated culpability for making a false statement	Court held charge was not erroneous; mistake-of-fact properly limited to belief that the certificate was authentic; belief about birthplace alone would not negate culpability
Whether the judgment improperly records a true finding on the enhancement absent an oral pronouncement	The record shows Ramirez pled true and the court accepted it; written judgment may show true without separate oral finding	Ramirez conceded he pleaded true but argued the court never orally found the enhancement true and sentence falls within third-degree range, so written finding is unsupported	Court held no oral pronouncement required; record reflects plea of true and trial court’s implied finding is valid; written judgment correctly states "true"

Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (two-step jury-charge error review)
Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (purpose and role of application paragraph)
Gray v. State, 152 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (erroneous application paragraph may render charge erroneous)
Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defendant entitled to instruction on defensive issue raised by evidence)
Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mistake-of-fact defense negates culpable mental state)
Beggs v. State, 597 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (definition of ‘‘kind of culpability’’ as culpable mental state)
Meineke v. State, 171 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (trial court not required to orally pronounce enhancement findings)
Seeker v. State, 186 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d) (written enhancement finding may be consistent with oral silence)
Torres v. State, 391 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d) (trial court makes implied finding of enhancement when record establishes truth)