Parrott, Ex Parte Jimmie Mark Jr.
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 637
Tex. Crim. App.2013Background
- Parrott, the applicant, seeks habeas relief alleging an illegal sentence due to improper use of a prior state-jail felony for enhancement.
- At plea, applicant was admonished that one enhancement raised his offense from a third-degree to a second-degree felony; he pled true and was sentenced to 15 years.
- State concedes the enhancement was improper but argues Parrott cannot show harm; habeas record shows three prior felonies could have supported the enhancement.
- Trial court found the sentence within the range supported by applicant’s criminal history, admonishments, and plea bargain.
- Appellate court applies harm analysis, holding no harm since the actual criminal history could justify the sentence; relief denied; dissents argue for relief on illegal-sentence grounds.
- Dissenting opinions contend the plea-bargained context requires withdrawal of the plea and remand to correct an illegal sentence, and criticize the majority’s harm-based approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must harm be shown to obtain habeas relief for an illegal sentence? | Parrott argues harm is not required. | State contends harm is required. | Harm required; relief denied on record. |
| Does lack of pre-plea notice about possible alternate convictions constitute harm? | Parrott argues lack of notice affected defense. | State argues post-plea notice suffices for issues raised in habeas. | Notice is not automatic harm; notice was provided in post-conviction context and defense had opportunity to contest. |
| Is the State estopped from raising an illegal-sentence claim based on plea terms? | Estoppel should not bar relief. | Estoppel may apply. | Not reached by majority; issue addressed only in dissent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (illegality of sentence; harm and substitute-convictions analysis)
- Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (illegal sentence notion; range of punishment)
- Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (illegality of sentence; authority by law)
- Ex parte Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (harm analysis framework in habeas)
- Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (harm proof by preponderance; not automatic in habeas)
- Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (notice need not be in indictment; due process notice)
- Pelache v. State, 324 S.W.3d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (notice sufficiency for enhancement in direct appeal)
- Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962) (due process notice principle for enhancement)
- Hall v. State, 546 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (enhancement notice and substitution concerns)