Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A jury convicted appellant of burglary of a habitation and sentenced him to 45 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence and remanded to the trial court for a new trial on punishment. HOLDING:The court remands the cause to the court of appeals so that the court may perform a harm analysis pursuant to Almanza. Appellant argues that the enhancement allegations were never read to the jury during the evidentiary portion of the punishment phase, but rather, after the close of evidence, the trial court stated that it was entering a plea of not true. He asserts that “the entire omission of the reading of an indictment and obtaining a plea thereto is ‘structural error’ not subject to a harm analysis.” Appellant also cites Turner v. State, 897 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), in which this court reaffirmed the principle of prior holdings that the reading of enhancement paragraphs at the penalty stage and entering a plea are mandatory and held that the error in not doing so is reversible because a harm analysis is inapplicable to such error. Appellant argues that Turner is still good law and dispositive. “Just as a defense counsel has a strategy, so has a prosecutor. Among the available strategies for the state is an election not to pursue enhancements. If the enhancements are in the indictment and the state does not abandon them, the defendant is on notice that the state is still seeking a greater penalty range. Here, however, the notice of intent to seek a greater penalty was in a separate document of a kind not usually read to a jury. In such circumstances, the failure to read enhancement allegations does not put a defendant on notice that the proceedings may have gone amiss and thus no objection is required. Likewise, a failure to take a plea from a defendant at that time raises no alarms as there are no allegations to which to plead.” When the jury charge was read and it became abundantly clear that the state was asking for enhancement far beyond that specified in its notice to appellant, appellant was bound to object. The appellant had a reasonable time to examine the charge of the court before the charge was read to the jury. He was then aware that the trial court proposed to submit an issue of fact that, in his view, had not been pleaded properly, i.e., the enhancement allegations that had not been included within the indictment or timely read to the jury. At that point, appellant should have objected, but he did not. Because appellant failed to object to the alleged error in the jury charge, he must show egregious harm before relief may be granted. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App 1984). OPINION:Johnson, J., delivered the court’s 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.