Wood, Carlton, PD-0061-15

Background

Carlton Wood was tried bench for evading arrest; he pled "not guilty" at trial and was found guilty. At punishment, the court announced an enhancement allegation as "true" and sentenced Wood to four years.
The indictment contained an enhancement paragraph alleging a prior felony (Sept. 23, 2002 drug conviction) but the enhancement allegation was not read at trial and no documentary proof (judgment/JIS/PSI admitted) was placed in the record.
The record contains no plea of "true" to the enhancement; the trial transcript shows no on-the-record plea to the enhancement and the PSI referenced by the State is not in the record.
The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed the punishment and remanded for a new punishment hearing, holding the State failed to prove even a prima facie case for enhancement.
The State sought discretionary review asking this Court to apply the presumption in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(c)(4) that a defendant pleaded to the charging instrument (and to treat that as a plea of "true" to the enhancement); Wood responded that the presumption cannot relieve the State of its burden to prove enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Wood's Argument	Held by Court of Appeals
Whether TRAP 44.2(c)(4) presumes defendant pleaded to enhancement and that presumption can be read as a plea of "true"	Presumption that defendant pleaded to the indictment supports treating any unrecorded plea as having occurred (including a plea of "true" to enhancement)	Presumption only covers pleading to the indictment generally; it cannot be stretched to supply a plea of "true" to an enhancement absent record evidence	Court of Appeals: presumption does not substitute for record evidence of a plea of "true"; plea of "true" must be affirmatively shown
Whether defendant had to object at sentencing to the court's announcement that enhancement was "true"	Failure to object should permit application of the presumption of regularity	No obligation to object when State failed to present prima facie enhancement evidence; defendant bears no burden to supply record proof for State	Court of Appeals: defendant was not required to object; State failed its burden and defendant need not protest absent prima facie proof
Whether the State met its burden to prove the prior conviction for enhancement (prima facie and beyond a reasonable doubt)	Argues defendant effectively admitted a prior drug conviction and the court/judgment recitals support enhancement; PSI (not in record) corroborated facts	Admission that he had "one drug conviction" is too vague to prove the specific prior felony alleged (penalty group, amount, offense type); no judgment or documentary proof in record	Court of Appeals: State failed to present prima facie evidence and did not prove the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal of punishment warranted
Whether recitals in the judgment or silence in record allow harmless-error or a presumption saving the enhancement	Recitals and silent record justify presuming regularity; harmless error principles should apply	Recitals cannot replace the State's burden to prove prior convictions for enhancement; failure of proof is not subject to harmless-error analysis	Court of Appeals: recitals/silent record insufficient; failure to prove enhancement is not harmless error

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. State, 671 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plea of true satisfies State's burden for enhancement; absent plea State must prove prior conviction)
Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App.) (State must prove existence of prior conviction and defendant's link to it)
Fletcher v. State, 214 S.W.3d 5 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption of regularity as to a prior conviction does not arise until State presents prima facie evidence)
Wise v. State, 394 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App.—Dallas) (declining to apply TRAP presumption to relieve State of burden to prove enhancements)
Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App.) (failure to prove prior conviction for enhancement is not subject to harmless-error analysis)
Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing standards for proving prior convictions and effects of failure of proof)
Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App.) (distinguished: concerns jury-waiver recordation, not enhancement burden)