Wise v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7160
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Wise was charged by indictment with theft of a motor vehicle valued at $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, a state jail felony.
- The indictment contained two enhancement paragraphs alleging Wise had two prior felony convictions—burglary of a building and theft enhanced.
- Wise waived a jury trial, pleaded not guilty to theft, and the trial court found him guilty as charged after a bench trial.
- At the punishment hearing, the court did not read the enhancement paragraphs, did not receive Wise’s plea to the enhancements, and the State did not introduce evidence or witnesses about the prior convictions; no stipulations were made.
- The judgment later signed on October 13, 2010 reflects a plea of “True” to both enhancement paragraphs and that the court found them true.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state proved Wise’s enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt | Wise contends no evidence linked him to the prior convictions. | State contends the judgment recital of a plea to true suffices to prove enhancements. | Enhancement proof failed; punishment was improperly enhanced. |
| Whether Wise’s three-year sentence for a state jail felony was void | Wise argues the trial court lacked proper enhancement proof, so the sentence exceeds the allowed range. | State argues the plea recital in judgment suffices and presumes regularity. | Sentence outside the allowed range; constitutes void punishment. |
| Appropriate remedy on remand given the failure of enhancement proof | Wise seeks instruction not to rely on the prior convictions on remand. | State may introduce evidence and prove enhancements anew at punishment. | Remand for new punishment hearing; conviction affirmed; double jeopardy not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (proof of prior convictions may be established by multiple documents or identities)
- Wilson v. State, 671 S.W.2d 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (plea of true constitutes evidence to support enhancement; must be affirmed by record)
- Lugo v. State, 299 S.W.3d 445 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2009) (record must reflect plea true or sufficient evidence of enhancement through record)
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (state must prove enhancement when no plea true shown in record)