Wood, Carlton
486 S.W.3d 583
Tex. Crim. App.2016Background
- Carlton Wood was tried (bench trial) for evading arrest (third-degree felony); indictment contained an enhancement alleging a prior Sept. 23, 2002 conviction for possession (1–4 g) that would elevate punishment to a second-degree felony.
- Record shows Wood pleaded not guilty to the indictment; the record is silent whether he pleaded “true” to the enhancement, but the judgment recited a plea of “true.”
- At trial the State questioned Wood about prior drug convictions; Wood admitted a single drug conviction in the 2000s and that he had served time (three years in custody, three on parole), but the State did not introduce documentary proof of the Sept. 23, 2002 conviction.
- The trial court found the enhancement “true,” imposed a 4-year sentence, and the judgment reflected a plea of “true.”
- The court of appeals reversed the punishment portion, holding the State failed to prove the enhancement because the record contained no plea of “true” and no prima facie documentary evidence of the specific prior conviction.
- The State sought review; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered (1) whether to presume a plea of “true” under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(c), and (2) whether the evidence was nonetheless sufficient to prove the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Wood's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a presumption under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(c) allows treating the judgment recital as a plea of “true” to the enhancement | Rule 44.2(c)(4) presumptively treats pleas as made; silence in the record should not overcome the judgment recital | A plea of not guilty to the indictment and absence of on-record plea to enhancement means no plea of “true”; State must prove enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt | No presumption: where record shows the defendant disputed guilt/punishment, court will not presume a plea of “true.” |
| Whether failure to object to the trial-court finding of “true” means plea may be presumed | Failure to object and a court finding should allow presumption | Lack of objection does not relieve State of burden to prove enhancement | No: absence of objection does not convert silence into a plea of “true.” |
| What quantum and types of evidence suffice to prove an enhancement when no plea is in the record | The judge reviewed a presentence report; Wood’s admissions (single drug conviction, prison time) and notice of intent identify the charged prior; combined evidence suffices | Testimony alone was too vague; could refer to a misdemeanor not usable for enhancement; State needed documentary proof or clearer link | The totality of the evidence may suffice; here the trier of fact could reasonably find the prior conviction and link beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissions, notice, and sentencing-related facts. |
| Effect of absence of prima facie documentary proof on presumption of regularity for the judgment recital | Judgment recital and Rule 44.2(c) support relying on the judgment | Absent prima facie evidence, no presumption of regularity attaches to the enhancement recital | Court rejected extending a presumption of a plea of “true”; but found sufficiency of evidence on the record, reversing the court of appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (explains the State must prove existence of prior conviction and link to defendant but no single required form of proof; trier of fact may consider all evidence as a “jigsaw puzzle”)
- Wilson v. State, 671 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (a plea of “true” must be affirmatively shown in the record; plea recitals cannot substitute for on-record proof)
- Fletcher v. State, 214 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (prima facie proof of finality of an enhancement conviction required before presuming finality; addresses limits of presumptions when documentary proof is lacking)
- Human v. State, 749 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (used in Flowers analogy regarding assembling evidentiary “puzzle pieces” to link a defendant to a prior conviction)
- Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (illustrative of relying on judgment recitals for procedural matters, not to supplant evidentiary proof for enhancement)