Moore, Jammie Lee, 2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 819

Appellant Moore challenges a court of appeals decision affirming a trial court cumulation of sentences for possession of methamphetamine with an earlier drug-free-zone sentence.
State moved pretrial to cumulate under Health and Safety Code §481.134(h) which mandates non-concurrent punishment.
Trial court sentenced Moore to 50 years; after sentencing, the court cumulated the two sentences beginning after the prior sentence.
Moore did not object at trial.
The court of appeals held there was a procedural default on the cumulation issue but analyzed the merits; this Court concludes the evidence does not support mandatory cumulation and that the trial court did not intend to cumulate absent the statute, so the cumulation order must be deleted, and the sentences run concurrently.
The Court modifies the judgment of the court of appeals accordingly, affirming as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the evidence sufficient to support mandatory cumulation under §481.134(h)?	Moore argues the State must prove actual increase in punishment, not merely increased range.	State contends increased range suffices for mandatory cumulation.	Insufficient evidence of actual increased punishment; cumulation order flawed.
Is a conviction for an offense listed in §481.134 (but not in a drug-free zone) a "conviction under any other criminal statute"?	Moore contends the current offense is not a separate statute.	State argues it is a separate offense listed under §481.134, triggering cumulation.	Current conviction is listed under drug-free-zone statute; not a separate offense for mandatory cumulation.

Williams v. State, 253 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (mandatory-cumulation interpretation; list vs. listed offenses under §481.134)
Ex parte Reynolds, 462 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (general rule on concurrent sentencing when not expressly cumulated)
Ex parte Vasquez, 712 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (time-of-pronouncement rule for cumulation)
Ex parte Voelkel, 517 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (procedural timing for cumulation orders)
Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (evidence connection required for prior-conviction cumulation)
Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (remedial approach when cumulation order improper)
Miller v. State, 33 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (evidentiary sufficiency in cumulation context)
Resanovich v. State, 906 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (sufficiency review in cumulation context)
Mungaray v. State, 188 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (sufficiency of evidence for mandatory-cumulation)
Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (evidentiary standard for sufficiency challenges)
Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preservation principles—sufficiency not always requiring trial objection)