Troy Lee Bridges v. State
14-14-00682-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 12, 2015Background
- Troy Lee Bridges was tried for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (second-degree felony) based on an allegation he placed a firearm to a victim’s head (Chambers County, Aug. 2013).
- The State filed a notice alleging six prior felony convictions for enhancement purposes; the indictment did not allege habitual-offender facts (i.e., that a prior offense occurred after an earlier conviction became final).
- After conviction by jury, Bridges entered a written stipulation and pleaded true to two prior felony convictions; the court accepted a punishment agreement and sentenced him to 32 years’ confinement.
- Before the punishment agreement was accepted, the court, the prosecutor in voir dire, and defense counsel all admonished/advised that the applicable punishment range could be 25–99 years or life (habitual-offender range).
- Bridges contends those admonishments were incorrect because the State’s pleadings did not invoke the habitual-offender statute, so he was entitled only to the regular enhanced ranges (second- or first-degree ranges depending on proven priors).
- Bridges argues the punishment agreement was not knowing/voluntary and that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the erroneous habitual-offender admonishments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bridges) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial court erred by accepting punishment agreement because indictment/notice did not allege habitual-offender status | Bridges: Agreement was predicated on mistaken belief he faced habitual-offender (25–99 or life) range; indictment/notice did not allege the required chronological allegations to invoke §12.42(d) | State: (Not expressly in brief; implicit position would be that enhancement pleadings and stipulation support the agreement) | Trial court accepted the agreement and imposed 32 years; appellate ruling not included in this brief. |
| 2. Punishment agreement was not knowing/voluntary due to erroneous punishment admonishments | Bridges: Court, prosecutor, and defense counsel incorrectly admonished him he faced habitual-offender range, so his assent was not knowing or voluntary | State: (Not supplied here) | Trial court accepted plea/admonishments and sentence; appellate disposition not provided in the brief. |
| 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to correct admonishments and not objecting to voir dire/admonitions | Bridges: Counsel performed below objective standard by failing to object and by affirmatively advising the erroneous habitual-offender range; likely changed decision to accept 32-year offer | State: (Not supplied here) | Trial court accepted stipulation and sentence; appellate disposition not provided in the brief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. State, 201 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (proper admonishment creates prima facie showing plea was knowing and voluntary)
- Lopez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (right to reasonably effective assistance of counsel)
- McCarter v. State, 527 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (successive prior convictions must be shown to be subsequent both in commission and conviction to invoke habitual-offender statute)
- Pena v. State, 132 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004) (standard for proving counsel ineffective where plea entered on counsel’s advice)
- Saylor v. State, 660 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (counsel not required to be error-free; effectiveness judged by objective standard)
- Seals v. State, 604 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982) (explaining requirements to invoke habitual felony statute)