Jamie Lee Bledsoe v. State, 06-16-00044-CR

Jamie Lee Bledsoe was convicted of burglary of a building (a state jail felony) with two prior felonies alleged to enhance punishment; initial judgment incorrectly listed offense as a second-degree felony and sentenced him to 20 years.
This Court previously corrected the judgment to show a state jail felony enhanced to the second-degree punishment range and remanded for a new punishment hearing.
On remand the trial court again entered a judgment that mis-stated the offense as a second-degree felony but sentenced Bledsoe to eight years; the State used different prior convictions for enhancement than in the first punishment hearing.
Bledsoe appealed, arguing (1) the judgment should reflect a state jail felony (not a second-degree felony), (2) his right to a jury trial on punishment was violated because no written in-court waiver appears, and (3) use of different enhancement convictions on remand violated double jeopardy.
The Court modified the judgment to correctly state the offense as a state jail felony with punishment enhanced to a second-degree range, and affirmed as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Correct offense grading in the judgment	Judgment should be modified to show conviction is a state jail felony	State concurs the judgment misstates the grade	Modified: judgment corrected to state jail felony (punishment enhanced to second-degree range)
Right to jury trial on punishment	Article 1.13 requires a written, in-person waiver for punishment phase; absence of waiver violated jury right	Jury determination of punishment is statutory; constitutional jury right does not require jury for punishment; no contemporaneous objection was made	Rejected: no constitutional violation; issue not preserved and Article 1.13 applies only to guilt-innocence phase
Use of different enhancement convictions on remand (double jeopardy)	Using different priors on remand amounts to impermissible double jeopardy	State may allege different prior convictions on remand to establish enhancement when prior alleged conviction was invalid for enhancement	Rejected: following Lockhart, using different enhancement convictions on remand does not violate double jeopardy

Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (punishment enhancements do not change the grade of the primary offense)
Martin v. State, 753 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (Article 1.13 waiver requirements apply to guilt-innocence phase; no separate written waiver required for punishment phase)
Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (using different prior convictions on resentencing does not violate double jeopardy)
Hackey v. State, 500 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (if no objection, it is presumed defendant agreed the judge should assess punishment)