Jamie Lee Bledsoe v. State
06-14-00138-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 2, 2015Background
- Appellant Jamie L. Bledsoe appealed a judgment from Harrison County; case No. 06-14-00138-CR.
- Appellant was convicted of burglary of a building, a state jail felony under Texas Penal Code §30.02(c)(1).
- The State sought enhancement under Texas Penal Code §12.425(b) based on two prior felonies, including #08-0177X which began as a state jail felony and was enhanced to a second-degree felony.
- The State's exhibit 50 (#08-0177X) was used to enhance, but the factual record showed that conviction remained punishable as a state jail felony under §12.35(a).
- The defense argues the enhancement was improper under §12.425(b) and that harm need not be shown on direct appeal per some caselaw, requesting remand for a new punishment trial.
- The State concedes error in using #08-0177X for enhancement and discusses potential alternative error-harm analyses and remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether harm must be shown for direct-review relief on an improper enhancement | Bledsoe contends harm is not required under Jordan and related authority on direct appeal. | State argues a harm showing may be unnecessary under Jordan-style reasoning, and Parrott may guide relief remand. | Harm need not be shown on direct appeal when improper enhancement is found. |
| Appropriate remedy when an improper enhancement is found | Bledsoe seeks remand for a new punishment trial with proper voir dire for enhancements. | State proposes remand for a new punishment trial with potential proper enhancements. | Remand for a new punishment trial is proper; the state may re-assert appropriate non-state-jail enhancements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Parrott, 396 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (harm necessary for habeas relief premised on illegal sentence)
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (state must prove enhancement; failure cannot be harmless)
- Samaripas v. State, 454 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (distinguishes 'punished' vs. 'punishable' for 12.425(b) enhancements)
- Taylor v. State, 462 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App.-Hou. [1st Dist.] 2015) (applies Samaripas reasoning to 12.425(b) context)
- Wilkerson v. State, 391 S.W.3d 190 (Tex. App. Eastland 2012) (harm analysis framework in enhancement contexts)
- Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (illegality of sentence; notice and defense rights)
- Pelache v. State, 324 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (due process notice for enhancements)
- McNatt v. State, 188 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (remand when proper enhancement possible)