Pelache v. State
2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1358
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2010Background
- Pelache was charged with robbery (second-degree) with an enhancement count alleging a prior aggravated-robbery conviction from 2000, potentially upgrading punishment to a first-degree range.
- He was convicted at trial of the lesser-included offense theft from a person (a state-jail felony) and faced a punishment hearing.
- On April 23, 2008, the State filed a motion for enhancement, seeking to use two additional prior convictions (also from 2000) to enhance punishment and cited sections 12.42 and 12.35.
- During the May 9, 2008 punishment hearing, the defense argued that notice did not properly inform him that non-aggravated state-jail could be enhanced to aggravated state-jail or higher ranges.
- The trial court sentenced Pelache to the maximum second-degree felony term (20 years) after considering enhancements.
- The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reversed, finding a due-process violation due to improper notice and ordering a new punishment hearing without the two improperly noticed enhancements; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of due-process objection to enhancement notice | Pelache preserved the objection by objections at trial and references in the record. | State contends preservation was lacking or not properly raised. | We assume preservation for the merits and address the due-process claim. |
| Whether notice of enhancement given on April 23, 2008 satisfied due-process requirements | Notice was untimely and violated due-process because it did not inform of enhanced consequences for a lesser-included offense. | Notice satisfied due-process; timing post-substantive trial but prior to punishment is adequate under Oyler and Villescas. | Notice was constitutionally sufficient; due-process rights were not violated; reversal of the court of appeals and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962) (recidivist notice need not be pretrial; reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard suffice)
- Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (notice at punishment stage may satisfy due process; time before trial not fixed)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (statute must define offense with sufficient definiteness)
- Cuellar v. State, 70 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (due process requires informing of what the law commands or forbids)
- Ex parte McCurry, 175 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (statutory notice can place inmate on notice of potential enhancements)
- Gowan v. State, 18 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App. Beaum. 2000) (cases discussing multiple prior convictions for enhancement)
- Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 447 (1962) (recidivist notice briefly discussed; due-process framework cited)