Hopkins, Essie D., 487 S.W.3d 583

Appellant Essie D. Hopkins was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced at punishment.
The State sought life-range enhancement under Texas Penal Code § 12.42(d) based on two prior aggravated-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon convictions; Hopkins pled "true" to both enhancements at the punishment hearing.
The indictment/notice alleged one prior conviction dated August 29, 2003; the other notice omitted the year but a contemporaneous notice of extraneous offenses specified convictions in January 2010 (for a June 2009 offense) and August 2003.
Hopkins later argued on appeal that the record did not sufficiently prove the required sequentiality (that the second prior offense occurred after the first conviction became final) and thus the enhancements were unsupported despite his pleas.
The trial court accepted Hopkins’s pleas; the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed; Hopkins petitioned for discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Issue	Hopkins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Hopkins’s plea of "true" to two enhancement paragraphs relieved the State of proving sequentiality such that omission of a year in the notice required affirmative proof	The omission made the sequence "not so clear," so the State still had to prove the second conviction post-dated the first conviction becoming final despite his plea	A defendant’s plea of "true" relieves the State of its evidentiary burden unless the record affirmatively shows the enhancements are improper	Court held Hopkins’s plea of "true" relieved the State; Hopkins failed to show the record affirmatively reflected improper enhancements, and the record supported the enhancements; judgment affirmed

Roberson v. State, 420 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (a defendant’s plea of "true" relieves the State of proving enhancement allegations unless the record affirmatively shows impropriety)
Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (elements required to enhance under § 12.42(d): first conviction final, second offense committed after that finality, second conviction final, and current offense committed thereafter)
Mikel v. State, 167 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (record can affirmatively show enhancement was improper if sequence is wrong)
Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing consequences of a defendant’s plea of true to enhancements)
Sanders v. State, 785 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990) (example where record affirmatively demonstrated a predicate conviction was not final before the primary offense)