State v. Austin George Patterson, 353 S.W.3d 203

Police found three dead cats with torture indications on a Universal City road, near tools and hair/blood, leading to Patterson and Mitchell's arrests.
Patterson and Mitchell were indicted separately for three counts of cruelty to nonlivestock animals, with allegations of deadly weapons used or exhibited.
Motions to quash the indictments argued deadly weapon allegations were facially invalid under the Penal Code; the trial court denied these motions after hearings.
Patterson and Mitchell pled guilty to the indictments, with no punishment agreements, and the court reminded them they could appeal prior rulings on pretrial motions.
Patterson was initially sentenced to eight years per count (concurrent), Mitchell to three years per count (concurrent); deadly weapon findings increased felonies from state jail to third degree.
Before plenary power expired, Patterson moved for reconsideration; the court resentenced Patterson to three years per count, in effect equalizing with Mitchell, while keeping deadly weapon findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deadly weapon allegations were facially valid against cruelty to animals	Patterson; Mitchell argued penalties not applicable to animal cruelty.	Mitchell; Patterson argued statutory provisions preclude use of deadly weapons in this offense.	Deadly weapon allegations valid; trial court did not err denying quash.
Whether the State is estopped from challenging the quash rulings	State contends appellants were estopped due to pleas and concessions.	Appellants contend conduct not inconsistent with appellate challenge.	Not estopped; challenges permitted.
Authority to modify Patterson's sentence after initial sentencing	State contends no authority absent proper grounds and new punishment hearing.	Patterson contends court could modify under Aguilera/Davis; grounds disclosed in motion.	Court had authority to modify; grounds and procedure satisfied.
Whether a new punishment hearing was required for the modification	State asserts necessity for new punishment phase and evidence.	Patterson asserts no additional hearing required beyond proceedings already held.	No new punishment hearing required; no error.
Whether Patterson’s judgment should reflect guilty pleas rather than nolo contendere	State seeks reform to reflect guilty pleas in judgments.	Record shows pleas were guilty; discrepancy in judgments.	Judgments reformed to show guilty pleas.

State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (indictment facially tested as a pleading; cannot rely on trial evidence)
Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (pretrial testing framework; not a mini-trial on evidence)
Woods v. State, 153 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (pretrial proceedings do not contemplate sufficiency testing of evidence)
Fullbright v. State, 818 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (indictment review on appeal; facial validity considerations)
Vasilas, 253 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (review of trial court's motion to quash based on statutory construction)
State v. Aguilera, 165 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (plenary power to modify sentence within 30 days; same-day modification)
State v. Davis, 335 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010) (motion to reconsider within 30 days sustains modification authority)
State v. Stewart, 282 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (new trial/resentencing discussed in context of sentencing discretion)
Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (felony status may be enhanced by deadly weapon findings)
Ware v. State, 62 S.W.3d 344 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (resentencing after initial sentencing discussion)