No. 06-14-00138-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________________________________________________________

JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from Cause No. 12-0374X

in the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

__________________________________________________________________

Robert Lee Cole, Jr.

409 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 101

Longview, TX 75601

SBOT: 04547800

903-236-6288 Phone

903-236-5441 Fax

rcolejd@gmail.com

Attorney for Appellant

Oral Argument is Requested

ACCEPTED

06-14-00138-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

8/3/2015 12:00:00 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/3/2015 7:54:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Jamie Lee Bledsoe, Appellant

#1945574

Wynne Unit

810 FM 2821

Huntsville, TX 77349

Robert L. Cole, Jr.

Appellant’s Counsel on Appeal

409 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 101

Longview, TX 75601

Ebb B. Mobley

Appellant’s Original Trial Counsel

P.O. Box 2309

Longview, TX 75606

Cheryl Cooper Sammons

Appellant’s Standby Trial Counsel

8907 State Highway 149

Longview, TX 75605

Shawn Eric Connally

Trial Prosecutor

Harrison County District Attorney’s Office

P.O. Box 776

Marshall, TX 75671

Joe Hall

Appellate Prosecutor

Harrison County District Attorney’s Office

P.O. Box 776

Marshall, TX 75671

Honorable Brad Morin

Presiding Trial Judge

71st District Court

200 W. Houston Street, Suite 219

Marshall, TX 75671 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel............................................................ i

Table of Contents............................................................................ ii

Index of Authorities......................................................................... iii

Statement of the Case....................................................................... 1

Statement Regarding Oral Argument..................................................... 1

Issue Presented.............................................................................. 1

The trial court erred when it imposed an illegal sentence upon the defendant 

when it unlawfully considered an enhancement of a state jail offense to a second 

degree felony.

Statement of Facts........................................................................... 1

Summary of the Argument.................................................................. 2

Argument...................................................................................... 3

Prayer.......................................................................................... 7

Certificate of Compliance................................................................... 8

Certificate of Service........................................................................ 8

ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Campbell v. State, 49 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)................6

Ex Parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. Crim. App 1996)....................4

Ex parte Reinke, 370 S.W.3d 387, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)...........5, 6

Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)...............5

Levy v. State, 818 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).....................7

Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)....................4

State v. Brown, 314 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2010)........7

State v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).............7

State v. White, 959 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1996)..............6

 

CODES, RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. Section 12.35 (West 2011)............................3, 5, 6

Tex. Pen. Code Section 12.42. (a)(2) (Vernon 2007)........................5, 6

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. Section 12.425 (West Supp. 2014)....................4, 5, 6

Tex. Pen. Code Section 30.02 (West 2014)....................................3

Tex. R. App. Pro. 43.2 (d)........................................................7

iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from a conviction of burglary of a building, which was 

enhanced by two prior felony convictions. The jury found Jamie Lee Bledsoe 

guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at 20 years confinement and a fine 

of $10,000.00. CR: 224. 

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant requests oral argument.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Issue No. 1- The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to twenty years 

as the state jail felony offense was improperly enhanced to second degree 

punishment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, for the state jail felony 

offense of Burglary of a Building which had been enhanced by two prior felony 

convictions. CR: 224-235. He was sentenced to 20 years in the Institutional 

Division, TDCJ. CR: 24.

Appellee, (hereafter referred to as “the State”) presented several witnesses at 

trial. Brad Horn was the manager of Fish and Still Equipment and stated that he 

discovered the business had been broken into as he arrived at work 16 July 2012. 

1
RR: Vol 3, p. 100. Police officers investigated the scene, as well as neighboring 

businesses, and located surveillance video. 3 RR 118. An investigating officer 

reviewed surveillance video from the crime scene and recognized appellant from 

the video as someone he knew from previous interactions. 3 RR 126-127. Officers 

canvassed local motels and learned that appellant was staying at the time at Motel 

6 in room 108 3 RR 134. Officers located Appellant at the Motel 6, and placed

appellant under arrest. A search warrant was secured and evidence was collected 

from the room at Motel 6. 3 RR 136, 4 RR 8-10. DNA evidence was collected, sent

to the DPS laboratory, and connected to the appellant 4 RR 10-12, 4 RR 75-85, 4 

RR 97-100.

The jury found appellant guilty. CR 207. At the punishment phase, the state 

introduced evidence of prior convictions that were used to enhance the range of 

punishment in this case to a second degree felony punishment range. 5 RR10-11; 7 

RR EX 50, 51 The jury assessed punishment for appellant at 20 years TDC and a 

fine of $10,000.00 after finding enhancement allegations to be true. CR 212, 224.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Trial Court erred by imposing an illegal sentence of twenty years 

2
confinement for the state jail offense of burglary of a building which was 

improperly enhanced. The maximum sentence for a state jail felony is 24 months 

confinement and a fine not to exceed $10,000.00. The Texas Penal Code does not 

permit the type of enhancement as requested by the State and as permitted by the 

court. The sentence of 20 years is illegal and the conviction is void.

ARGUMENT

Appellant Jamie Lee Bledsoe (hereinafter referred to as Bledsoe) was 

convicted following a jury trial of the state jail felony offense of Burglary of a 

Building pursuant to TEXAS PENAL CODE § 30.02 (C) (1) (West 2011). The 

range of punishment for a state jail felony is by confinement in a state jail for any 

term of not more than two years or less than 180 days, and a fine not to exceed 

$10,000.00. TEXAS PEN. CODE ANN § 12.35 (a) and (b) (West Supp. 2014).

This Honorable Court of Appeals noted that the State introduced State’s Exhibits 

50 and 51 (State’s Exhibit 50 being the prior judgment of conviction for burglary 

of a building) without objection in its order dated June 4, 2015.

Because the 20 year sentence for the state jail felony is unauthorized by law, 

it is an illegal sentence. A void or illegal sentence is one that is not authorized by 

3
law. Mizzell v. State, 119 S.W. 3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

A defect which renders a sentence void may be raised at any time. Ex Parte 

Beck, 922 S.W. 2d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

There are certain circumstances when the punishment for a state jail felony 

may be enhanced for certain offenders with prior felony convictions. TEX. 

PEN.CODE ANN. § 12.425 Vernon 2014 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 other than a state jail punishable under Section 12.35 (a), 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 felony of the second degree.”

The State filed State’s Notice of Intent to Seek Enhanced Punishment Due to 

Prior Conviction and in that motion cited Cause Number 99-0124X from the 71st

District Court of Harrison County, Texas for Possession of a Controlled Substance 

and then a subsequent conviction Cause No. 08-177X of Burglary of a Building, 

also from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas. These convictions 

were introduced into evidence as State’s Exhibits 51 and 50 respectively.

The judgment in Case No. 08-0177X (State’s Exhibit 50) states that it is a 

judgment for the offense of Burglary of a Building-Enhanced and cites “Section 

30.02 Penal Code.” Cause 08-0177X which was improperly used to enhance Mr. 

Bledsoe in the instant case, was for the state jail felony offense of Burglary of a 

4
Building, with the punishment range enhanced to a second degree felony. Statutes 

enhancing punishment ranges for the primary offense do “not increase the severity 

level or grade of the primary offense.” Ford v. State, 334 S.W. 3d 230, 234 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2011); see also Ex Parte Reinke, 370 S.W. 3d 387, 389 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2012).

The State has previously addressed the issue in its brief filed in this cause 

filed May 4, 2015 in this case.

The State claimed that appellant relied in error upon Tex. Penal Code S 

12.42(a) (2) (Vernon 2007) which reads,

“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.”

The language in both the old statute Tex. Pen. Code Section 12.42(a)(2) and 

the current section 12.425 (b) share the same language of “other than a state jail 

felony punishable under Section 12.35 (a).”

The newer TEX. PEN. CODE § 12.425 (b) language does not change the 

nature of a state jail conviction from a state jail felony to any other level of felony. 

The language specifically states, “other than a state jail felony punishable under 

Section 12.35 (a)...” The language dealing with “other than a state jail punishable 

5
under 12.35 (a)” has previously been addressed by Texas Appellate Court. The 

legislature selected and used the language in the statutes in question in a careful 

and deliberate manner with the intent that they be construed to affect a reasonable 

result, we hold that the legislature intended to exclude state jail felonies punishable 

under section 12.35(a), and subject to enhancement under section 12.42 (a) (2), 

from the class of felony offenses that fall under the habitual offender provisions of 

section 12.42 (d).” State v. White, 959 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998) 

(rev. on other grounds). See also Campbell v. State, 49 S.W. 3d 874 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2001).

The legislature clearly did not change the language in section 12.425 

from “punishable” to “punished”. By not changing the language, the prior state jail 

felonies in the instant case cannot be used for enhancement, since no change in 

wording was made. The Court of Criminal Appeals in Reinke stated “The 

legislature clearly knows the difference between enhancing the level of an offense 

and enhancing the level of punishment.” Reinke at 389

If such lack of enhancement is an oversight in the statute, it is the business 

of the legislature, rather than the courts to correct it. Campbell at 878. Since this 

case was punishable as a state jail felony, the level of the instant offense is not 

6
raised, and the sentence of twenty years is void, this case must be reversed.

When interpreting a statute, an appellate court should necessarily focus on 

the literal text of the statute in question and attempt to discern the fair, objective 

meaning of that text at the time of its enactment. State v. Muller, 829 S.W. 2d 805, 

808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). See also State v. Brown, 314 S.W. 3d 487, 490 (Tex. 

App. Texarkana 2010).

When an appellate court finds error at the punishment stage of the trial the 

case may be remanded to the trial court for the proper assessment of punishment.

Tex. Rule App. Pro 43.2 (d), Levy v. State, 818 S.W. 2d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991).

In this case, the State used an improper conviction in an attempt to enhance 

the punishment for the offense of burglary of a building from a state jail felony to a 

second degree felony. The result was an illegal sentence of twenty years and a 

$10,000.00 fine. Because the sentence is illegal, it is void. A void sentence can be 

remedied by reversal and remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of 

punishment

PRAYER

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant respectfully request that 

7
this Honorable Court of Appeals reverse the judgment of the trial which illegally 

sentenced appellant to twenty years confinement and remand this case back to the 

trial court for sentencing as a state jail felony.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this computer generated document contains 1,499 words 

as limited by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.4.

/s/ Robert L. Cole, Jr.

ROBERT L. COLE, JR.

Counsel for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 1st day of August 2015, a copy of the 

foregoing has been delivered to the Harrison County District Attorney’s Office, 

200 W. Houston Street, Marshall, TX 75670 with attention to Joe Hall, Attorney 

for Appellee via electronic service.

/s/ Robert L. Cole, Jr.

ROBERT L. COLE, JR.

Counsel for Appellant

8