Joe Angel Hernandez v. State
11-15-00209-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Appellant Joe Angel Hernandez was convicted by a jury of felony DWI (subsequent offense); he elected the trial court to assess punishment.
- During punishment, Hernandez pleaded true to two prior felony convictions alleged for enhancement: robbery (conviction date Oct. 16, 2000; offense in 1999) and murder (conviction date Apr. 4, 2003; offense in 1998).
- The trial court found the enhancement allegations true and assessed a 50-year sentence.
- On appeal Hernandez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence proving the required chronological sequence for habitual-offender enhancement.
- The State conceded it failed to prove the required sequence; the court agreed and held the enhancement could not stand because both prior offenses were committed before either conviction became final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved the required chronological sequence for habitual-offender enhancement | State argued enhancement paragraphs were satisfied by the two prior convictions | Hernandez argued the State failed to prove convictions and offenses occurred in the sequence required by Tomlin | Court held State failed to prove proper sequence; enhancement invalid and punishment must be retried |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Tomlin v. State, 722 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (sets the required chronological sequence for habitual-offender enhancement)
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (sufficiency review applies to enhancement-paragraph findings)
- Wood v. State, 486 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (applying Jackson standard to punishment-phase evidence)