Marquez, Ernest Villa
PD-0561-15
| Tex. | Jul 21, 2015
Case Information

*1 Causc No. 11-14-D0215-CR 561-15 Marquez, Ernest Villa Te-cr No. CR 42978 PO.0361-15 ORIGINAL In the Court of Criminal Mmsals Austin, Texas Tetriton for Discertonner Review Nivels Ernest Villa Marquez In: A. DANESEL

Prelonal Petition for Discerbonner Review IN Derional Affiliant's Deiel For Affial from Cause No. CR 42978 . In the 142 th Judietal District Court of Mulland County, Texas the Honokable Defense O. Celles FILED-IN Festidivg Cause COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUL 21265 Abel Acosta, Clerk

Aufficani, Pas Se Ernest Villa Marquez I. O. 4. D1995709

Mark W. Stiles unit 3060 F.M. 3514 Eeaumont, Tex. Addeess 77705 Tx .2 ii [&; Cover Sheet ⋆ ]

*2 Teial Judge Honorable Lady Grilles 1928 U. O. STRIET Louet Midland Country, Texas State's WITNESSES (NONE) Oetendant's WITNESSES 'ATcoent' Kevin Heker Ernest Villa Marencez (Oetendant)

*3 Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Authorities Statement of the Case Issues, represented on Appeal Statement Facts Argument Summary Quoting: Senator whirnive point of Eerive states use of Enhancement week Impeoped, used. point of Eerive II Total Powers Failure to Analyze or Apply the new. tokerecty. point of Eerive III The states Remarks week-Impeyce Conclusion pervece EERTIFICATE OF SENEVE EERTIFICATE OF SENEVE

*4 Table of Authorities

  1. Tek Penal Code ANB 3 12:92 (c.d)
  2. State V. Manacuso (APV 1996) 919 S.W. 2d. 86. .)
  3. Statuteny Elements
  4. Woodard V. State S.W. 3d 242 Tex.APQ. Lexis 2969 L Tex. HPV-AuSTIN APR 11-2012
  5. (K. 11666 )
  6. Caldikon V. State 997 S.W. 2d 377 (Tex.APQ. E/PRSO 1999), 40 K AP.
  7. Filled Complaint
  8. Stickland, Supra Heennckz V. State 988 S.W. 2d 770,772 (Texas CR. APV 1999)
  9. Heennckz, 988 S.W. 2d 770 N.A temus Stehlem (C1HWS STICKLand 666 U.S.AY 687)
  10. WATS V. State (APV 2 W1st-2001) 56 S.W. 2d 844
  11. Detendant's Indierment
  12. Aetick 92.12 (8)-(6)

*5

STATEMENT OF the CPSSE July 1612012. This Cause as called for a bench trial A Duer having been wnived by defendant/PPp.11.68). Defendant/PPp.11.68. Enforment of the Atsa of "Sulley" to the Charges of "Purgeance" of a Building" as alleged in the Enforment. (T. 7). Followins Evidence the Coner Connected defendant/PPp.11.68. The Coner Assessed Charged (R. III.4). The Coner Assessed Enforcement as Ten (10) Yeme's Incarceration (T.61); (R.3,5). Notice of Appyal was daily and timely filed (T. 69).

*6 Issues Pressented on AApEal Whether the States Closing Hemmels were Improver?

*7 STATEMENT OF FACTS. Ostendant/APPEEant Hed "guify" in this Case To buaslavering a heal P.H. Conventerle Stake by throwing a Rock through the glass and EWrering To stERI CIGRRETIES and OTHER STEMS. (R.11.15;111.70). He Hed been deink. vo. And was disteanobt over a child protective SEEVIES cases to which he ad been a party that"רed in the TERMONMATiN of his Parental CoHrs. (R.11.96-98). It is uncentroverted that detendant/APPEEant is the best detine And also Uncentroverted that he was under the IUPHERME t Alend at the time of the Ineident. (R.11.96-98). During the VEAT, AuthoeHes ANGIVEd And Pheed detendant APPEEant in Lustudy. (R.111.70). since detendant/APPEEant has previous fellow Conventions. Ie was Facing A Penalty Range of From Two (2) two to Twent (20) veHes IneIerEeration. (R. II. 7).

*8

AIRUMENT SUMMARY

  1. The state Engaged in Inpepperly use of Enhance meuts which WERE BEYOND The WYtFRENt Rule's BOWERN ENHANCEMENTS And
  2. Tetal Counts Failure To Analyze or Apply the InP. Porewerly
  3. The state's IMPROVERE Closing KEMMARs. WERE IMPESPER BEYOND, the found ATEPpable PARANETERS of Closing Aegument And thus PREDUCEDed deEendant/APPEtant.

*9

POINT of ERROR

T

STATES USE of ENHANCEMENTS WHERE IMPOIPEELY USED

APPEtIANT WAS SENTENDED IN ACCORDINATE WITH THE ACIMONISMENENT AND MEN BURGIC TO "TEN YEARS" IMPREISONMENT APPEtIANT RATES POINT of ERROR.

APPEtIANT GUERNADS THAT AN IILEGAL SEAPERCE RESUTED FROM THE USE OF TEX PENAL CADE ANN SECTION 12.42 (d) (VERNION 1944) TO ENHANCE A STATE JANI FELANY USING TWO PEAR FELAY CONVERTIAN. APPEtIANT SEEKS A REVIANd FOR RESENTENCING AS a STATE JANI FELAN WATER TEX PENAL CADE ANN SECTION 12.35 (a)-(b) (VERNION 1944) Also SPECIFIC PRINUSIANS of TEX CADE CERN P. ANN ARTICLE 12.42 of the PENAL CAde STATE V. MARCH 20905 S.W. 2d 386 (TEX. ANV -QUACTION) ' 122 WIST MAY 18.1945, KEY SENTED. ARTICLE 42-12 SECTION 16 RECHINEES THE TRIAL COURT TO SUSPEND THE SENTENELY IMPOINTAL WATER SECTRAS 12.36 (a) and (b) THERETHEE. FOR THE SAME REASON THAT ARTICLE 42-12 SECTION 15 GUERNADS OVER ARTERIE 12.62 SECTION 12.95 (a) and (b) ENTERLY OVER ARTERIE 12.42 THIS ISSUE IS RESUTLED IN MARCHOUS V. STATE. . Thus SECTION 12.42 (d) CANNOT BE USED TO ENHANCE A STATE JANI FELANY PERIMAY, STENASE WHEN SECTIONS 12.36 (a)-(b) WOULD DIDER WIDE GOVERN THE SENTENCE IMPOSED THE TRIAL COURT EERED because the STATE REGARDIC PAST PRIGNS FELLSHUT OF ELASTICING AS SEVEREE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO this RECARD CONSTRUITED A PROPER CURATIVE MEASURE WHICH WAS NOT FOLLOWED THE STATE MAKE NO AFFIR MATIVE DENDY/WELKEN FIRDING. STATUTARY ELEMENTS OF DURSINELY of A DURSING WATER TEXAS IAN ON NOT MAKE IS A PER SE CERNE OF VIOLENCE FOR PURPAGE OF INCREASING THE DISSE DYEASE TENE WATER THE SENTENELY GUURSUNES BE CAUSE THEY ON NOT NECESSARITY INVOLVE USE OF PHYSICAL PUREE ADMINST THE PERSON OF MATTER U.S.S. 9 $ 2 K 2.1 (a) (b) (c) 4 $ 1 − 2 (d), 18 U.S.C.A. V.T.C.A. PENAL CADE

UNDER PENAL CADE ANN. SECTION 12.35 (c) ANN 12.425 (c) RETRICULARY PHIANISHENT IEVE I INCREASED AND WAS NOT ERLIIUAIENT TO THE IEVE I INCREASED FROM A STATE JANI FELANY CONVERTION TO ENHANCE RETRICULARY PHIANISHENT TO A SECOND RESUEE FELANY. SEE. WOODARED V. STATE S.W. 3d 2012 TEX. AFD. LEXIS 2954 ( TEX. AFV- AUSTIN APR 11-2012

*10

POINT of ERROA

Teral Countrs failure To Analyze or Apply the law. Conrectly. below a Rabber. Robbery Suspect A violent Rersom Prosecutive state whaterver he wants To "Rob (R.III.66). Approved counsel for detendant To Argue the Allocation of below a Robber/Robbery Suspect detendant of the law Is unskilled and without Ex-PERTEMES, or detendant would of obvieted to Allocation Acsument is a Reasonable deduction from Evidence, SEE. Calderon V. state, 847 s.w. 2 d 377.333 (Tex.APD-E/PASo 1993), POR REF. there was absolutely no evidence of Robbery and it cannot be said that characterizing detendant, APPEtlant as such did not improve the teral court. Note 10 a copy of detendants/APPEtlant filed Complain for the shewitt "CRAy PRINTER Violared his Constitonal Right To Mecess to the Countrs by deriving him an adequate law liberer. All the law books at the midland said week out dated Agam detendant would of obvieted Allocation.

Counsels failure To obveer and make known the standards below a Rabber Robbery suspect A violent Rersom Prosecutor stated (R. III.66) was Datside the boundries Counsel was clearly aware that Ewhamefment used deRing SENTENEins To Enhance the statewail felony to A Second degree was Dutside the law effective REPER SEN tation in a noncapital case Is EVALUATED UNDER STANDARD RETICUIATED in Srivelland, Super. HeENANdEZ V.STATE 988. S.W. 2 d 770.772 CTEXAS CR.AP. 1999) OVER Rulins the Reasonably Efferive Standard.

HelenandEZ, 988 s.w. 2 d 770 N2 (e ithin Srivelland 966 u.S.At 637)CITES that there is a Reasonable Probability the Result of the Case would have been different, but Countrels detretent PERFORMAKE. If, a Probability sufficient unclenitive the the Confidence in the Dutlome

*11 The states Kermatks were Imprased wants V. state (APD. 2 Oct 2001) 56 s.w. 3d 844 perine unvagravated state Convictions Could not be used along with one perine felony Conviction To Enhance Enrichment of defendant Convicted of a statevial felony to A 2 4th degree felony.

On Incllement defendant/APEelunt on the 26 th day of dehance, 2013 Entee A building had committed their cause No. 42478 - paraqnab (2) (Enhancement defendant was convicted of building cause No. 436490 paraqnab (3) (Enhancement defendant was convicted of building cause No. 436491 after defendant perine Convictions was peopley used to enhance the change oftense from statevial felony to 3 4th degree felony the same conviction Could not be used axain to enhance defendant's puvishments; state is not permitted to wopt use the same perine there were RESTRICTIONS ON MUNIME use of Individual perine Convictions for Enhancement's while the same perine Conviction may be used for Enhancement's in different Prosecutions.

Helenandee V. state (ce.APD. 1495) 429 s.w. 2 d 11. After defendant perine Conviction was peoplephy used to enhance the chance oftense from statevial felony to A 3 4th-degree felony the same conviction Could not be used axain to enhance defendant's puvishments; state is not permitted to use the same perine Convictions more than DNEU in same Prosecution.

defendants/APEelunt case The Visited Accountant within the Perine Level Guidelines I was never to go any further than a 3 4th degree or statevial Enrichment A statevial felony does violate those limits therefore defendant's CONCEEED that Building "CIN RESPETTO A 2 4th degree felony puvishment to an un authorized sentent does violate those criminal recidative guidelines.

The information alleged too perine felony Convictions for building neither of which fell under act. 42.12 (3) (9) No. ADEDED AFTERMATIC findings of a deadly weapon. Sentence should be REVERSED.

Wote ∣ O a copy of Anewded notice of intent to other Evident of EXTERNEOUS CRINES. ACTS and WROADS CONMITTEED by defendant, where Convictions did not involve deadly wemens of any ponvictious listed as in section 3.9 (a) (a) 42.12. Code of Criminal procedure

*12 "Quoting" Senator

Quoting: Senator whirmike the Forb. degree of the stateJail felon. will remain a stateJail felon as long as He or she Is committed a [39] of these previously. Your Nor Eligible for a stateJail or you commit a stateJail offense with a weapon youn Nor Eligible. Those two will enhance you. othem wise. As long as youne in the Loop so to speak in Committins stateJail felonies you will remain a candidate for the stateJail.

*13

Conclusion

Because detendant/APPEtant NEVER USED OR EXhibited A deadly WEBWON AS detined by SEetion 1.07. VEENON'S TEXAS COdE ANNOTATED Volume 2 Renal Code SEetions 9.01 to 19.02 SuPERMENITING 2011 MAIN Volume for USE IN 2012-2013 INeludes LAW'S ThRoush the 2011. FIRST CAIIED SESSION of the 32 set LESISIATURE OR CONVicted of ANY FELNY. (a) under Section 20 A. 03 or 21.02 or listed in Section 33 (a) (c') Article 42.12. Code of CERMinal PROCEDURE: OR (b) For which the Judgment Contains AN AFFIRMATIVE finding under Section 3-3 (a) (c) Article 42.12 Code of CERMinal ProceCure

During the Course of ComnirIins this buegIneY ANd Absolutely NO. Evidence of Cominirting ANd CERME be Tond A simple statefail buRENCEY of building for clemely this IS A 'phase of the Law UHOW which the state Is EnTitled To REly for PUBTISHENT Article 42.12 Code of CERMinal ProceCure the TREal COURT WENT be Tond the PROPER SENTENcing guideline's ANd TO REtire detendant/APPEtant as a 'Robber' No one was "Robbed" dueING the Course of A. Simple statefail BuRENCEY.

*14 PRAVER Whefford. APVellant years this Honorable Count Consider the Record and his best Containing his point of Error and, after due Lond consideration, Grant the RE- quested Relief. Reveasing his Sentence.

REPRESENTED BY: Ernest V. Maseque 1945709 STILES UNIT 3060 F.M. 3514 BEAMMONT, 7277706 PRO SE

RECURSORTE OF SPECIES

I Heefly Ceerity that on this the, 13, day of July 2015 YR. A. W. Said Petition I original biscertionary Review were united straffs. Postmailed by: elferk Louise WENESON, SUPERME Count Blds. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 To BE filled IN the SUPERME WUDIEtAl DISTRICT.

PRO SE/Ernest Villa Maseque

I Heefly Ceerity that on this the, 13, day of July 2015 YR A. W. A COPY of the foregoing were united states post mailed by: DISTRICT MASEque TEXASA ClinganN molland County Courthouse 500 N. Y. ORANGE STREET MULlaad, TEXAS 79701

PRO SE/Ernest V. Maseque

I Heefly Ceerity that on this the, 13, day of July 2015 YR A. W. A COPY of the foregoing were united states post mailed by: STATE PRO SECutions ATTODAY, 202 PERE WALWAY. SE DID 1264 W. 1426 ST AUSTIN TEXAS 78711-2368

RECURSORTE OF RULE Compliance

I Heefly Ceerity that the report used herein is 20 prior years and that the word Count is 1,323

PRO SE/Ernest V. Maseque

*15

*16

United States District Court

William Putnicki Clerk of Court

Western District of Texas Midland-Odessa Division 200 East Wall, Room 107 Midland, Texas 79701-5217 (432) 686-4001

June 12, 2014

Ernest V. Marquez

# 246746 Midland County Detention Center P.O. Box 11387

Midland, TX 79702

Re: Marquez v. Gary Painter

Dear Sir: This is to acknowledge receipt of your Complaint in the above captioned case title Marquez v. Gary Painter. Your case was filed June 10, 2014, and assigned docket number MO-14-CV-054, and referred to the Honorable Robert A. Junell for disposition.

Please indicate your assigned case number on all future doēuments submitted for filing in this case. Furthermore, you must keep the court informed of your current address throughout the pendency of your case. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of your case for want of prosecution.

Additionally, when filing subsequent pleadings, you must serve them upon the defendant or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon his attorney. You must also include with the original and copy of the pleading to be filed with the Clerk of Court, a certificate of service, stating that the true and correct copy of the pleading was mailed to defendant or his counsel. If you wish to received a file-stamped copy of the pleading, you must submit an original and two copies, along witha self-addressed, stamped envelope.

If you desire a copy of a previously filed document, you must submit a written request for same, along with a search fee of $ 26.00 . In addition, a fee of $ .50 / page will be charged for the copying of this pleading. A copy of the docket sheet for this case may be obtained by submitting the copying fee of $ .50 / page. All checks are to be made payable to "Clerk, U.S. District Court" and sent to the above listed address. The granting of any in forma pauperis status does not exempt you from the payment of these search and copying fees or from any of the requirements noted above.

Sincerely,

*17

*18

OR 42478

| THE STATE OF TEXAS | § | IN THE DISTRICT COURT | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | | § | | | V. | § | 142 | | | § | | | ERNEST VILLA MARQUEZ | § | MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS |

AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER EVIDENCE OF EXTRANEOUS CRIMES, ACTS AND WRONGS COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN STATE'S CASE IN CHIEF ON GUILT-INNOCENCE AND/OR PUNISHMENT

COMES NOW the State of Texas by and through her District Attorney and gives notice to the defendant as required by TEX. R. CRIM. EVID. 404(b) and 37.07 of the TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. that the State of Texas intends to offer in the State's case in chief at guilt-innocence and/or punishment evidence, or for the purpose of enhancing the range of punishment, of the following crimes, acts and wrongs committed by the defendant, which may be considered extraneous, to-wit:

  1. On or about July 31 st , 1986 , in Mitchell County, Texas, the defendant, A.K.A. Earnesto Villa Marquez, was convicted in the County Court of the misdemeanor offense of Driving Under the Influence in Cause # 13,676.
  2. On or about April 15, 1988, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Burglary of a Building in Cause # D18,399 in the 385 th District Court, and was sentenced to 7 years TDCJ.
  3. On or about April 15, 1988, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle in Cause # D-19,211 in the 385 th District Court, and was sentenced to 5 years TDCJ.
  4. On or about June 29, 1989, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Burglary of a Building in Cause # C19,965 in the 244 th District Court, and was sentenced to 8 years TDCJ.
  5. On or about October 14, 1998, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Fail to Maintain Proof of Financial Responsibility in the County Court at Law No. 2 in Cause # 983622 .

*19

  1. On or about October 14, 1998, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Fail to Maintain Proof of Financial Responsibility in the County Court at Law No. 2 in Cause # 983620 .
  2. On or about May 7, 1999, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Burglary of a Building, enhanced as a habitual offender, in Cause # B-27,346 in the 161 st District Court, and was sentenced to 5 years TDCJ.
  3. On or about July 22, 2003, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Unlawful Use of a Motor Vehicle in Cause # A-30,761 in the 70 th District Court and was sentenced to 9 months State Jail.
  4. On or about September 9, 2004, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Theft greater than $ 50 but less than $ 500 in the County Court in Cause # 04-2175.
  5. On or about October 13, 2006, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Driving While License Suspended in the County Court in Cause # 06-1623.
  6. On or about October 13, 2006, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Driving While Intoxicated 2 nd in the County Court at Law in Cause # 06-2517.
  7. On or about February 9, 2007, in Midland County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Driving While Intoxicated in the County Court in Cause # 113157.
  8. On or about June 6, 2007, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Driving While License Suspended in the County Court in Cause # 07-2400.
  9. On or about January 7, 2008, in Hudspeth County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle in Cause # 3980 (Count One) in the 394 th District Court and was sentenced to 15 months State Jail.
  10. On or about January 7, 2008, in Hudspeth County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Burglary of a Building in Cause # 3980 (Count Two) in the 394 th District Court and was sentenced to 15 months State Jail.

*20

  1. On or about August 28, 2009, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Burglary of a Building in Cause # A 36 , 482 in the 70 th District Court and was sentenced to 15 months State Jail.
  2. On or about August 28, 2009, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Burglary of a Building in Cause # A 36 , 483 in the 70 th District Court and was sentenced to 15 months State Jail.
  3. On or about July 27, 2011, in Ector County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Driving While License Suspended in the County Court at Law in Cause # 11-2324.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the defendant is hereby notified that at the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause, the State intends to introduce in evidence at the State's case in chief on guilt-innocence and/or punishment the aforesaid extraneous crimes, acts and wrongs committed by the said defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

Andrew van der Hoeven Assistant District Attorney Midland, Texas 79701

*21

Opinion filed April 23, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

No. 11-14-00215-CR

ERNEST VILLA MARQUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR42478

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After an open plea of guilty, the trial court found Ernest Villa Marquez guilty of burglary of a building, found the enhancement paragraphs to be "true," and sentenced Appellant to confinement for ten years and no fine. Appellant argues, in his sole issue, that the trial court erred when it did not declare a mistrial after the State's prosecutor, during closing argument, referred to Appellant's prior criminal history of burglaries and twice referred to Appellant as someone who continued to "rob." We affirm.

*22

I. Evidence at Trial

Because Appellant does not advance a sufficiency challenge, we recite only the facts necessary to review his appeal. The grand jury indicted Appellant for burglary of a building and alleged he had intentionally and knowingly entered a building without the owner's consent and had attempted to commit and committed theft in the building, a " 7 -Eleven" convenience store. [1] Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the indictment, and the trial court found him guilty of the offense of burglary of a building. Appellant also pleaded "true" to two enhancement paragraphs [2] that alleged he had committed two felony offenses of burglary of a building. [3] After hearing evidence from the State and Appellant, the trial court found two enhancement paragraphs to be "true" and later sentenced Appellant to confinement for a period of ten years.

II. Analysis

Appellant argues, in his sole issue, that the trial court erred when it did not declare a mistrial after the State's prosecutor, during closing argument, referred to him as someone who continued to "rob"; Appellant claims this was harmful closing argument.

The prosecutor emphasized Appellant's lengthy criminal history that included nine convictions for burglary and other convictions for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, theft, and other offenses. The record reflected that Appellant had prior convictions for burglary but no convictions for robbery. The prosecutor outlined this lengthy criminal history to argue for a longer sentence than Appellant had received for previous convictions. The prosecutor sought the maximum

*23 sentence available: confinement for twenty years. [4] During his closing arguments before the court, the prosecutor made two references to "rob" in close succession, but immediately after the second instance, he recognized his error and corrected himself. He stated that "rob" was "the wrong term" and that he meant to say "burglar[iz]ing their businesses."

During this part of the closing argument, defense counsel did not object. To preserve error, Appellant must object or the error is waived. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368, 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274, 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Courts have applied this rule to bench trials. Dorsey v. State, No. 01-13-01022-CR, 2014 WL 6602517, at 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 20, 2014, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Parker v. State, No. 02-11-00032-CR, 2011 WL 5984539, at 2-3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 1, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (failure to object to prosecutor's closing arguments, during bench trial, forfeited any potential error for appellate review).

But even if defense counsel had objected, and we assumed error, it would be reviewed under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) and disregarded unless Appellant's substantial rights were affected. See Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 692-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Given that Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary, that he admitted having been previously convicted of burglaries, and that he had a lengthy criminal history, which included no robbery convictions, any error in the prosecutor's closing argument did not affect Appellant's substantial rights and had no impact on the trial court. See Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citing Orona v. State, 791 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)).

*24

In reviewing the entire record and the prosecutor's entire closing argument, we hold the two isolated references did not cause Appellant harm. We overrule Appellant's sole issue.

III. This Court's Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MIKE WILLSON JUSTICE

April 23, 2015 Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

NOTES

1 See TEX. PeNAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(1) (West 2011).

2 See id. § 12.425(b) (West Supp. 2014).

3 During Appellant's sentencing hearing, the State also adduced evidence of multiple convictions by Appellant for DWI and other offenses, but these convictions were not the basis for the enhancement paragraphs.

4 The punishment range for a state jail felony with two prior felony enhancements is not more than twenty years of imprisonment but not less than two years of imprisonment. See PENAL § § 12.33 , 12.425 ( b ) .