Jamie Lee Bledsoe v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11270
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Jamie Lee Bledsoe was tried pro se (with standby counsel) and convicted of burglary of a building, ordinarily a state-jail felony, and sentenced to 20 years after the State alleged two prior felony convictions for enhancement.
- Bledsoe pled not true to the enhancement allegations; the State introduced judgments for a prior burglary (a state-jail felony) and a prior possession conviction (a second-degree felony).
- The jury found both enhancement allegations true, and the trial court assessed punishment at 20 years.
- Bledsoe argued the prior state-jail felony could not be used to elevate his current state-jail felony to second-degree status because Section 12.425(b) requires two prior felonies other than state-jail felonies.
- The State conceded Bledsoe’s prior burglary conviction, though previously punished as a second-degree felony, was nonetheless "punishable under Section 12.35(a)" (i.e., a state-jail felony).
- The court held the enhancement was improper, modified the judgment to reflect the correct degree (state-jail felony), reversed the punishment portion of the judgment, and remanded for a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior state-jail felony punishable under § 12.35(a) can be used to enhance a current state-jail felony under § 12.425(b) | Bledsoe: No — § 12.425(b) requires two prior felonies other than state-jail felonies to elevate punishment to second degree | State: Prior burglary had been punished as 2nd-degree; enhancement was valid (and alternate non-state-jail convictions existed) | Court: No — statutory text and precedent bar using a prior offense punishable under § 12.35(a) to enhance a state-jail felony; enhancement was improper |
| Whether the illegally enhanced 20-year sentence requires remand for a new punishment hearing | Bledsoe: Remand; sentence exceeds maximum for state-jail felony so punishment stage error requires correction | State: Relies on Parrott and claims actual criminal history would support sentence; urges harm analysis | Court: Remand for new punishment hearing; on direct appeal harm analysis is not required and Jordan controls |
| Whether the appellate court may modify the judgment to reflect correct offense grade | Bledsoe: Judgment should list proper degree (state-jail felony) | State: (no contest) | Court: Court modified judgment to correctly list offense as state-jail felony |
| Whether unalleged but provable alternative enhancements save the sentence | State: Other valid prior felony could have been used so error is harmless | Bledsoe: State failed to allege or amend enhancements at trial | Court: Not considered—State failed to plead/amend; on direct appeal cannot employ a harm analysis to uphold an unauthorized sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 49 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ("felony" and "state jail felony" are mutually exclusive for enhancement)
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (errors in habitual-offender enhancement on direct appeal are not subject to harm analysis)
- Samaripas v. State, 454 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (state-jail felony punishable under § 12.35(a) may not be used for enhancement after 2011 amendment)
- Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (sentence outside statutory maximum is unauthorized and illegal)
- Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (remand for proper assessment of punishment when punishment-stage error found)
- Ex parte Parrott, 396 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (in habeas context, applicant must show harm for relief from illegal sentence)
- Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (enhancements that increase penalty do not change the statutory grade of the primary offense)