Marcus Leslie v. State, 06-15-00057-CR

Marcus Leslie was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; jury found two prior felonies and assessed 50 years' imprisonment.
The trial court judgment, however, sua sponte included a deadly-weapon finding.
The State filed a second notice seeking enhanced punishment under Texas Penal Code § 12.42(d), alleging two prior felony convictions: residential burglary (final Feb. 10, 2005) and theft of property (final Jan. 9, 2007).
The notice attached the second judgment showing the date of the second offense (Sept. 13, 2005), which postdated the first conviction’s finality.
Leslie moved to quash the enhancement notice, arguing it failed to allege that the second felony occurred after the first conviction became final. He also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the deadly-weapon finding.
The State conceded the deadly-weapon finding was unsupported; the court deleted that finding but affirmed the conviction as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Leslie)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the enhancement notice sufficiently alleged the second prior felony occurred after the first conviction became final	Notice failed to allege the required temporal sequence (second felony after first conviction final)	Notice plus attached judgments provided sufficient notice of dates showing the second offense postdated the first conviction’s finality	Overruled Leslie’s complaint; notice was sufficient
Whether evidence supported a deadly-weapon finding	Firearm possession was not shown to have been used or exhibited during a collateral felony; thus insufficient	Initially found by trial court, but State conceded insufficiency on appeal	Deadly-weapon finding deleted; insufficient evidence

Freda v. State, 704 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (prior convictions need not be pled with same particularity as the primary offense)
Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (prior-conviction allegations need only be pled "in some form")
Drichas v. State, 175 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (deadly-weapon finding requires use or exhibition during the transaction and that others were put in actual danger)
Narron v. State, 835 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (mere possession of a firearm does not support a deadly-weapon finding)
Plummer v. State, 410 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discusses use standards for deadly-weapon findings)
Tyra v. State, 897 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (analysis of use/exhibition for deadly-weapon findings)
Smith v. State, 944 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (discusses distinction between possession and use for deadly-weapon findings)