X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance. The indictment included two enhancement paragraphs that alleged previous felony convictions. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense and true to the enhancement allegations. The trial court admonished him that the range of punishment was 25 years to life or 99 years, based on the appellant’s plea of true to the enhancement paragraphs. The court accepted the appellant’s guilty plea, found the enhancement paragraphs to be true, but deferred an adjudication of guilt. The court placed the appellant on community supervision for 10 years. Four years later, alleging violations of several terms of the probation, the state moved to adjudicate the appellant’s guilt. Finding that the appellant had violated the terms of his probation, the trial court granted the state’s motion to adjudicate and found him guilty of the original offense. The court sentenced the appellant to 10 years’ confinement, but did not take into account the enhancement allegations for which a finding of true had been made in the original proceeding. The state appealed, complaining that the court erred by not considering the enhancement paragraphs and by failing to sentence the appellant pursuant to the habitual-offender provisions in Texas Penal Code �12.42(d). The state argued that under �12.42(d), the appellant’s two previous final felony convictions, the second felony offense having occurred after the first conviction was final, required that he receive a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, and held that the trial court had sentenced the appellant outside the range of punishment for a felony committed by a habitual offender by ignoring the previously found enhancement allegations. This court granted review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in taking jurisdiction of the state’s appeal. HOLDING:Affirmed. Enhancement findings, however, differ from a deadly-weapon finding in two important respects. First, enhancements are not explicitly mentioned in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.01. The second important distinction between a deadly-weapon finding and enhancements appears upon examination of Chapter 12 of the Penal Code. Under State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. Cr. App. 1997), the assessment of punishment within a particular range is part of the sentence. Chapter 12 of the Penal Code provides the punishment ranges for offenses, and includes the ranges for habitual and repeat offenders. The duration of punishments prescribed for habitual and repeat offenders is part of the sentence just as is the duration of punishments prescribed for the other types of offenses addressed in Chapter 12. Deadly-weapon findings under Article 42.12 do not appear in Chapter 12, the court considers them to be included in the facts pertaining to the proper punishment and the term of confinement, as they only affect the duration of the sentence. The Legislature’s decision to prescribe the punishments for exceptional sentences and those for ordinary sentences in the same explicit manner supports the conclusion that both are included in the meaning of “sentence” under Article 42.02. Furthermore, in Sigler v. State, 157 S.W.2d 903 (1942), this court held that proven enhancement allegations are historical facts, “offered for the purpose of arriving at the punishment to be assessed.” Such facts are the type of information to which Ross held the article 42.02 definition of sentence was limited, for they prescribe the proper term of confinement. The court holds that enhancement findings are part of the sentence, and that the state may appeal a trial court’s failure to consider such findings when assessing punishment. OPINION:Womack, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, and Cochran, JJ., joined. Holcomb, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.