Hubble, William Buckner, PD-0249-15

Defendant William Buckner Hubble was convicted of felony unlawful possession of a firearm in 2010.
Two prior felonies were alleged for enhancement, including a 1987 burglary of a motor vehicle (later reclassified to a misdemeanor).
During punishment, defense sought to argue the 1987 conviction had been reclassified, challenging its use for enhancement.
The trial court overruled the objection, and the argument was cut off when the prosecutor objected as outside the record.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding defense counsel’s remark was improper and any other arguments were not preserved for appeal.
Petitioner sought discretionary review, arguing the Court of Appeals failed to address the merits of his preservation/context arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals erred under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1) by analyzing context of record.	Hubble argues the court should consider the context showing counsel’s intent to discuss the reclassification.	State contends the only apparent matter was defense counsel’s intended improper argument and preservation failed.	Court of Appeals erred; merits should have been reached on preservation/context.
Whether the court properly addressed preservation of error for the jury-argument issue.	Hubble contends error was preserved by trial-record context and objection.	Appellate court should deem arguments waived if not clearly preserved.	Court of Appeals erred by not addressing preservation and merits.
Whether trial counsel was improperly prevented from informing the jury that a prior conviction had been reclassified.	Hubble asserts reclassification to misdemeanor could not be used to enhance punishment.	State argues the reclassification is a legal status that can be discussed within proper bounds.	Merits should have been reached; error to sustain broad objection without addressing the context.

State v. Wooldridge, 237 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reclassification of felony to misdemeanor does not disqualify for enhancement; may be communicated to jury)
Eckert v. State, 672 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. App. Austin 1984) (jury argument must align with the charge; improper to argue law contrary to charge)
Melendez v. State, 4 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (allowed discussion of reclassification before it was overruled on other grounds)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (procedural default standards; preservation requirements emphasized)
Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (right to counsel; improper limits on defense argument)