Travis Lynn Grubbs v. State, 440 S.W.3d 130

Grubbs was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, with the court imposing 30 years’ confinement.
He appeared pro se at trial after the court permitted standby counsel to assist; the district court advised of risks of self-representation.
Grubbs was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a first-degree felony; the jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance.
Two officers observed unusual behavior around a convenience store and discovered cocaine in a brown paper bag near Grubbs’s car after an arrest for public intoxication.
Grubbs sought jury punishment but failed to file a timely election before voir dire or obtain State consent to change the election.
The court addressed issues on (a) jury-assessed punishment, (b) admission of extraneous-offense evidence, and (c) jury instructions related to extraneous and illegally obtained evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to jury punishment vs. court punishment	Grubbs argues the court denied his statutory right to jury punishment.	Grubbs failed to timely elect jury punishment and State did not consent to a late change.	Waived right to jury-assessed punishment; court punishes.
Admission of extraneous-offense evidence	Grubbs contends officer’s testimony about prior false name was irrelevant and prejudicial.	State asserts no objection preserved error for review.	Error not preserved; issue waived.
Duty to include limiting instruction on extraneous offense	Grubbs argues trial court should have sua sponte given extraneous-offense limiting instruction.	Evidence admitted without limiting instruction, but defendant did not request one.	No error; not required absent request and proper conditioning of evidence.
Duty to include instruction on illegally obtained evidence	Grubbs contends article 38.23 instruction should have been given.	No fact issue raised about legality of seizure; no instruction required absent disputed facts.	No error; no disputed material fact about legality; instruction not required.

Ivey v. State, 277 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (no constitutional right to jury punishment; election required before voir dire)
Daniels v. State, 577 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (state consent required to alter election after initial filing)
Gibson v. State, 549 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (no presumption of change in election absent consent)
Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court sua sponte duty on limiting instructions; not all issues must be charged)
Holmes v. State, 223 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 2007) (article 38.23 instruction; affirmed in 248 S.W.3d 194)
Pickens v. State, 165 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (three-prong test for article 38.23 instruction)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (affirmative evidence required for article 38.23 issue)
Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (harm standard when no error preservation; some harm required)
Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (egregious-harm standard for unpreserved jury-charge error)
Lovings v. State, 376 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (reversal for egregious harm when improper jury instruction)