Curtis Lee Smith v. State ( 2009 )

NO. 07-08-0516-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JULY 14, 2009
______________________________
CURTIS LEE SMITH,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B17591-0803; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
__________________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Curtis Lee Smith appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance
(cocaine) in an amount of less than one gram. He does so by contending he was not
subject to enhancement as alleged in the indictment. We reverse and remand the
judgment.
The State alleged that appellant had previously committed a felony on August 20,
1991, in Cause No. A10855-9109 for which he was sentenced to probation on November
25, 1991, and which probation was revoked on August 5, 1994. The State then alleged
that after the conviction in Cause No. A10855-9109 was final, appellant committed another
felony in Cause No. B11663-9403 for which he was convicted on August 4, 1994. That
felony was committed on March 9, 1994. Because the current offense is a state jail felony,
see TEX . HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN . §481.115(b) (Vernon 2003), it is enhanced pursuant
to §12.42(a)(2) of the Penal Code which states: “If it is shown on the trial of a state jail
felony punishable under Section 12.35(a) that the defendant has previously been finally
convicted of two felonies, and the second previous felony conviction is for an offense that
occurred subsequent to the first previous conviction having become final, on conviction the
defendant shall be punished for a second-degree felony.” TEX . PENAL CODE ANN .
§12.42(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2008).
The pen packet admitted into evidence shows a judgment revoking probation in
Cause No. A10855-9109 on August 5, 1994. A probated sentence is not a final conviction
for enhancement purposes until it is revoked. Jordan v. State, 36 S.W.3d 871, 875 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2001); Ex parte Murchison, 560 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Since the first conviction did not become final until August 5, 1994, the second conviction
did not occur prior to the first becoming final. For this reason, the evidence is not legally
sufficient to support the enhancement paragraphs. Tomlin v. State, 722 S.W.2d 702, 705
(Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (stating that when there is no evidence to show the offenses were
committed and became final in the proper sequence, the defendant’s sentence may not
2
be enhanced). This is true even though appellant pled true to the enhancement
allegations. See Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Moreover,
the error may not be deemed harmless. Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286, 292 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008). Therefore, the judgment must be reversed.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court for a new
punishment hearing.1 See Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d at 513 (stating that when there is
error at the punishment phase, the case may be remanded for the proper assessment of
punishment).
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1
The State concedes that the enhancem ent was im proper and that the cause should be rem anded
for a new punishm ent hearing.
3