C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
GE RA RD O L EO S, Ap pe lla nt, V. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 03 40 -C R

Appea l from the 346th District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2007ODO0115)

O P I N I O N Ger ardo L eos plea d g uilty to the offe nse of dr iving while intoxicated. The of fense was enhanc ed by

his prior DWIoffe nses to a third-de g ree felony , and he w as sentenc ed to 18 y ear s imprisonment. Appellant raises f our issues for this Court’s re view. In I ssue One, A ppellant
c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr on e ou sly

de nie d h is m oti on

to q ua shthe ind ic tme nt b e c a

us e at le a st one of his prior D WIconvictions was to re mote to be used for enhanc ement. In I ssues Two and Four , Appellant cha lleng es the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence supporting the enhanc ement of his convic tion to a third-deg ree felony . In I ssue Thre e, Appe llant asserts that the trial court imposed a

n unauthorized sentenc e. We af firm the judg ment as modified. On September

10, 2006, a Te x as State Troope r initiated a tra ffic stop of A ppellant’s vehicle be cause the passeng er r iding with Appe llant was not wea ringa seat belt. When the office r made contac t with Appellant, he noticed that there w as an ope n twenty -four ounce be er can on the floor of the vehicle be tween A ppellant and the pa sseng er. The office r also noticed Appellant had bloodshot eyes, wa s slurringhis speech, a nd smelled of alc ohol. The off icerAppellant simultaneously plead guilty

to another D WIchar g e and w as sentenc ed 1 concur rently for the two of

fense s. Appellant has a

ppeale d both convictions, and this Court has addre ssed them as c ompanion case s. Se e Le os v . S tate , 0 8- 07 -0 03 41 -C R ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so April 16, 2009, no pet. h.). -2- perf ormed a field sobriety

test consisting of thr ee e x aminations, all of which indicated that Appellant wa s intox icated. A ppellant re fused to take a bre ath test. The of fice r then a

rre sted Appellant for

driving while intox icated. Appellant agree d to plead guilty to the char g e of f

elony driving while intox icated, third or
more. On the day

of trial, Appe llant filed a motion to quash the indictment arguing the use of 1 Appellant’s pr ior DWIconvictions was: (1) an improper attempt to habitualize the offense and incre ase the punishment; (2) ag ainst public policy ; (3) improper on the g round that one of Appellant’s pr ior convictions is “void as the judg ment itself ref lects that [Appellant] was unrepr esente d by

counsel at the time he waive d his right to a jur y trial and pled guilty

and at the time the Court entere d its judgment;” (4) an improper “double” enhanc ement not authorized by the leg islature, and in violation of due proce ss; and (5) violated due proce ss beca use one of

the prior fe lony

judgme nts used for e nhance ment was a conviction for bur g lary

of a ve hicle. The trial judg e denie d Appellant’s motion in open cour t, prior to Appellant’s plea
. Duri ngthe ple a

he ari ng , th e State int

ro du c e d e vid e nc e of

Ap pe lla nt’ s p ri or c onvic tio ns , including two c onvictions for DWI , and convic tions for burg lary of a ha bitation and burg lary

of a vehicle. T he trial c ourt admitted the evide nce of Appellant’s pr ior convictions without objection from Appe llant, and ac cepte d the plea a nd the prosec ution’s rec ommendation that Appellant
serve eig hteen year s in prison. The trial cour t cer tified his rig ht to appeal a ny matters ra ised by
wr itt e n mo tio n p ri or

to t ri a l.-3-

In I ssues Two and F our, Appe llant challeng es the leg al and f actua l sufficienc y

of the evidenc e to support the convic tion for fe lony DWI . Specifica lly , Appellant cha lleng es the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence supporting the enhanc ement of his convic tion to a third-deg ree felony . He a

rgues that the e vidence failed to e stablish the prior convictions we re f inal acc ording to t he law i n e ff

e c t w he n th e y

we re e nte re d, and

is the re fo re , in su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

his conviction for f

elony DWI . These a

rguments have not be en pre serve d for our revie w. A d e fe nd ant h a s th e ri g ht t o a pp e a l pu rs ua nt t o A rt ic le 44 .0 2: [P]ro vid e d, ho we ve r, be fo re the de fe nd ant who ha s b e e n c onvic te d u po n e ith e r h is plea of g uilty or plea of nolo contendr e bef

ore the court a

nd the cour

t, upon the elec tion of the defe ndant, assesse s punishment and the punishment does not exceed the punishment re commended by the prosec utor and a g ree d to by the defe ndant and his attorne y may prosec ute his appea l, he must have pe rmission of the trial cour

t, except on those matters which ha ve bee n raised by

written motion fi le d p ri or to t ri a l. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 44.02 (V ernon 2006)
. Rule 25.2(a) (2) of

the Texas Rules of Appellate proce dure inc orporates Article 44.02 by
re fe re nc e and

pr ov ide s th at th e tr ia l c ourt “ sh a ll” e nte r a

c e rt if ic atio n o f t

he de fe nd ant’ s r ig ht t o appea l eac h time it enters a judg ment, or other a ppeala ble orde r. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)( 2). Simi larly , Rule 25.2 limi ts the defe ndant’s rig ht to appeal only those matters that we re r aised by
wr itt e n mo tio n, fi le d a

nd ru le d o n b e fo re tr ia l, o r a ft e r g e tti ngthe tr ia l c ourt ’s pe rm iss ion to appea l. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)( 2). We have r eviewe d the motions filed by Appellant’s attorney

prior to trial and ha

ve not fo un d a wr itt e n mo tio n whic h r a ise d th e iss ue of the fi na lity

of Ap pe lla nt’ s p ri or DWI of fe ns e s to the trial cour

t. The re cord doe s not contain evidenc e that the tria l court has g iven per mission for Ap p e l l an tt o a

p p e a l an y i s s u e s b e yo n d

th atw h i c hi s s t at e d

i nth e c e rt i f

i c at i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y,-4-

Appellant’s a

rguments in I ssues Two and F our ar e not prope rly befor e this Court and are
overr uled. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 25 .2 (a )( 2) ; T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 44.02. In I ssue One, A

ppellant cha lleng es the trial c ourt’s rulingon his moti on to quash the ind ic tme nt. Ap pe lla

nt a rgue s th at th e mot ion

sh ou ld h ave be e n gra

nte d o n th e g ro un d th at hi s prior DWIconvictions wer e to re mote or stale to be use d for e nhance ment. Howeve r, Appe llant did no t in c lud e thi s argume nt i n h is wri tte n mo tio n to qu a shin t he tr ia l c ourt . A s th e State po int s out, Article 27.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure require s that “[a]l l motions to set aside a n indictment or information, and a ll special plea s and exceptions shall be in writing .” T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . a rt 27 .1 0 ( Ve rn on

20 06 ). B e c a

us e thi s g ro un d w a s n ot i nc lud e d in his moti on, Appellant’s a rgument was not prope rly prese nted to the trial cour t and was not prese rved f

or appe llate re view. Se e Prud ho mev . S tate , 989 S.W .2d 852, 855 (Tex.App.-- Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, no pet.), c iti ng Mc Do na ld v . S

tate , 692 S.W .2d 169, 174-75 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, pet. re f’d) . Acc ording ly , I ssue One is ove rruled. In I ssue Thre e, Appe llant contends that bec ause the trial court f ailed to find the
en h an ce m en tp ar agr ap h s tru e, i ti l l ega l l y s en t en ce d

h i mt o a p un i s h m en to u t s i d e t h e r an ge proscr ibed for a

third-degree felony . The off ense of driving while intox icated is a third-degree fe lony if it i s sh own th at th e de fe nd ant h a s p re vio us ly be e n c onvic te d o f t

wo of fe ns e s r e latin gto the oper ation of a motor ve hicle while intoxi cate d. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.09(b)( 2) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Gene rally , the ra ng e of punishment for

a third-de g ree felony

is not more than ten or le ss than two y ear s. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.34(a) (Ve rnon 2003). How ever , the rang e of punishment incr ease s betwee n two and twenty y ear s when e nhance d by

a prior f elony conviction. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12 .3 3( a ); T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12.42(a) (3)( Ver non-5-

Supp. 2008). The trial c ourt admitted evidenc e, without objection, that Appellant ha d been c onvicted of two felony

offe nses prior to his arr est for D WIin this i nstance . Appellant wa s admonished that he wa s char g ed with a third-de g ree felony , punishable as a second- deg ree felony . He plea d “guilty ” to the same in open cour t. I n addition, Appellant judicially confe ssed to “the truth of
any and a ll p ara g ra

ph s a lle g e d f

or purp os e s o f e nh anc ingpunis hme nt. ” A j ud ic ia l c on fe ssi on to the truth of the e nhance ment para g raphs r elieves the States of its burden to prove the alleg ations “bec ause a

plea of ‘true’ constitutes ‘evidenc e and suf ficient proof

to support the enhanc ement alleg ation.’” Fo rd

v . S tate , 2 43 S.W. 3d

11 2, 11 7 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 200 7, pe t. ref ’d), qu oti ng

W ils on v . S tate , 671 S.W .2d 524, 526 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). Appellant also a

rgues that the trial c ourt’s fa ilure to make a n express finding of

“true ”
re g ard ingthe punis hme nt e nh anc e me nts re nd e rs the inc re a se d s e nte nc e ill e g a l. Wh ile it i s pr e fe ra ble fo r t he tr ia l c ourt

to r e a d th e e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra ph s o ra lly , a

nd make an e xpre ss finding of true, in c ases whe re the trial court a lone is assessingthe def endant’ s punishment, the court doe s not err by

not doing so. Se e k

e r v . S tate , 1 86 S.W. 3d

36 , 3 9 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. re f’d) . Her e, Appe llant provided a judicia l confe ssion admitti ngto the enhanc ements, and the trial court a dmonished him that he would be subject to an e nhance d punishment rang e. The enhanc ed punishment rang e would not have been a vailable without the trial court having f

ound one of the enhanc ement par ag raphs to be tr ue. The ref

ore, a lthough the
rec ord does not conta in an express findingby the trial cour

t, the rec ord establishes that the tr ial court impliedly

made a finding of true a s to one of the pr ior felonies. Se e Al ma nd v . S tate , 536 S.W. 2d 37 7, 37 9 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 76 ); Ga rn e r v . S tate , 858 S.W .2d 656, 659-60 (Te x .App.---6-

For t Worth 1993, pet. ref’d) . As we ha ve conc luded that Appellant plea d true to the a lleg ations in t he e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra

ph s, and tha t th e tr ia l c ourt

imp lie dly

fo un d th e a lle g atio n o f at le a st one of those e nhance ments to be true, the se ntence imposed was not outside the ra ng e for the offe nse for

which Appe llant was convic ted. I ssue Thre e is overr uled. Havingdeter

mined Appellant plea d true to the e nhance ments, and the trial c ourt impliedly found one of

the enha nceme nt para g raphs to be tr ue, it is nece ssary

to refor m the judgme nt. An appellate court ha s the authority to modify

incorre ct judg ments where the evidenc e nec essar

y to corre ct a judg ment appea rs in the re cord. T EX .R.A PP .P. 43 .2 (b ); Tyler v. Sta te , 137 S.W .3d 261, 267-68 (Te x .App.--H ouston [ 1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). He re, de spite the trial court’ s finding of

true a nd Appellant’s a dmission t hroug h his plea and judicia l confe ssion, the judg ment states “N/A” wher e the plea to the enhanc ements should have be en ente red on the judgme nt and “N/A” wher e the c ourt’s finding s on the enha nceme nts should have bee n enter ed. Ac c or din g ly , w e mod if

y the jud g me nt t o r e fl e c t th at App e lla nt p le a d tr

ue to t he fi rs t enhanc ement par ag raph a s alleg ed in the indictment, and that the tr ial court found the same to be true. We affir

m the trial court’ s judgme nt as modified. April 16, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)