Wright, Sir Melvin Jr.
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1162
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender; indictment caption referenced enhancement to a third-degree felony but contained no enhancement paragraph and State did not file a separate enhancement pleading.
- At plea hearing appellant was admonished he faced a third-degree felony (2–10 years); he admitted prior problems with registration and waived defects in the charging instrument.
- Trial court assessed a 10-year sentence, suspended it, and placed appellant on five years regular community supervision.
- State later filed a second motion to revoke; appellant pled true, the court revoked supervision and reduced the sentence to five years confinement.
- On appeal from the revocation, appellant argued his sentence was illegal because the underlying offense was only a state-jail felony (2 years) absent a properly pled enhancement.
- Court of appeals held the revocation appeal is generally limited to the revocation, but an illegal sentence can be challenged anytime; it applied Ex parte Parrott’s habeas harm analysis and rejected appellant’s claim for failure to show the enhancement was unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (State/Ct. of Appeals) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an illegal-sentence claim raised on appeal from a revocation proceeding may be evaluated without applying the habeas harm inquiry | Sentence is illegal because indictment lacked an enhancement paragraph; direct appeal standard should apply | The claim is a collateral attack on the original sentence in a revocation appeal; habeas precedent (Parrott/Rich) governs whether sentence is actually illegal (must show harm/unavailability of enhancement) | Court affirmed: the illegal-sentence challenge in a revocation appeal is a collateral attack; Parrott harm analysis applies and appellant failed to show harm |
| Whether an illegal sentence renders the original judgment void so it can be collaterally attacked on revocation appeal | Appellant argues the sentence was outside the lawful range and thus illegal | Court: to be void, the judgment must be a nullity (Nix) — illegal sentence that survives habeas harm review is not void | Held: judgment not void; Nix exceptions not met |
| Whether appellant preserved or litigated the enhancement/unavailability issue at revocation hearing | Appellant did not raise objection at revocation | State notes appellant did not litigate the issue at revocation and had waived defects earlier | Held: habeas-exception inapplicable; appellant failed to litigate at revocation and cannot rely on habeas-less protection |
| Whether indictment caption or waiver amounts to notice or waiver of enhancement defect | Appellant disputes adequacy of notice | State/court point to caption, plea admonitions, appellant admissions, and waiver language as evidence of notice/waiver | Held: Court did not decide merits but observed record likely supports enhancement notice and waiver; appellant failed to show enhancement was unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Parrott, 396 S.W.3d 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (post-conviction habeas illegal-sentence claims require a showing of harm; actual criminal history may negate harm)
- Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussed in Parrott; relevant to habeas treatment of illegal-sentence claims)
- Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (defines when a judgment is void and thus subject to collateral attack)
- Levy v. State, 818 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (remedy for sentencing outside lawful range is remand for resentencing)
- Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (prior convictions used as enhancements must be pled in some form but need not appear in the indictment)