No. 14-14-00682-CR

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS 

FOURTEENTH JUDUCIAL DISTRICT 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

TROY LEE BRIDGES, 

Appellant 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee 

Appeal in No. 17438 

In the 344th District Court 

Chambers County, Texas 

BRIEF OF APPELLANT 

 James F. Keegan 

 Texas Bar No. 11155400 

 4421 Jim West Street 

 Bellaire, Texas 77401 

 713-668-4797 

 whynyet@sbcglobal.net 

 Attorney for Appellant 

ACCEPTED

14-14-00682-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/12/2015 8:19:03 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/12/2015 8:19:03 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Troy Lee Bridges

Appellant

Represented at trial by:

Gary F. Dennison

Texas Bar No. 05755000

340 Main Street

Liberty, Texas 77575

936-336-6408

936-336-8167-facsimile

Represented on appeal by:

James F. Keegan

Texas Bar No. 11155400

4421 Jim West Street

Bellaire, Texas 77401

713-668-4797

whynyet@sbcglobal.net

The State of Texas

Appellee

Represented at trial and on appeal by:

Dane Listi

Texas Bar No. 00794178

First Assistant District Attorney

Chambers County

P.O. Box 1409

Anahuac, Texas 77514

409-267-8271

409-267-3105-facsimile

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ................................................................ i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .................................................. vi

ISSUES PRESENTED .................................. ......................................................... vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................... 2

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3

PRAYER .................................................................................................................. 9

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 10

ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Houston v. State, 201 S.W.3d 212, 217

(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet. ........................................... 7

Lopez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 406, 416

(Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref’d) ............................................................. 7

McCarter v. State, 527 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975) ......................... 5 

Pena v. State, 132 S.W.3d 663, 668-669

(Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) ..................................................... 8

Saylor v. State, 660 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) .............................. 8

Seals v. State, 604 S.W.2d 899, 906

(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1982, no pet.) ......................................................... 4

iii
Texas Penal Code

§ 12.32 ................................................................................................................... 4

§ 12.33 ................................................................................................................... 3

§ 12.42(b) .......................................................................................................... 4&7

§ 12.42(c)(1) .......................................................................................................... 7

§ 12.42(d) .............................................................................................................. 4

§ 22.02(a)(2) & (b) ................................................................................................ 3

iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Troy Lee Bridges was charged in No. 17438 with the second degree 

felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the indictment 

(CR-4&5) alleging that, on or about August 12, 2013, in Chambers County, 

Texas, he intentionally or knowingly threatened Leann Ball with imminent 

bodily injury by placing a firearm to her head, using or exhibiting a firearm 

during the commission of the assault. The State further alleged six prior 

felony convictions for purposes of enhancement. CR-54&55.

On August 11, 2014, jury voir dire was conducted (see RR7), and on 

August 12, 2014, Bridges plead not guilty (RR8-10&11). Thereafter, the State

presented three witnesses, and then rested (RR8-165). Bridges rested 

without presenting any witnesses, and without testifying on his own behalf. 

RR8-166. The jury found Bridges guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon as charged in the indictment (CR-73 and RR9-34-35).

Thereafter, an agreement was reached regarding punishment. RR9-

36&37. Bridges plead true to allegation of two prior felony convictions as 

identified in his stipulation (RR9-55&56), and the court below sentenced him 

to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional 

Division for a term of 32 years (CR-82&83, CR-85&86, and RR9-57&58).

v
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Troy Lee Bridges does not request oral argument.

vi
ISSUES PRESENTED

1. The court below erred in accepting the punishment agreement 

entered into by Bridges with the State, as neither the indictment (CR-4&5) nor 

the State’s notice of intent to enhance (CR-54&55) alleged that Bridges was an 

habitual offender.

2. The punishment agreement entered into by Bridges with the State 

was neither knowing nor voluntary, as Bridges was erroneously advised as to 

the range of punishment to which he might have been subjected.

3. Bridges received ineffective assistance of counsel in entering into the 

punishment agreement with the State.

vii
1

TO THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS:

Appellant Troy Lee Bridges, convicted of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon in No. 17438 in the 344th District Court of Chambers County, 

Texas, appeals his sentence of confinement in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice – Institutional Division for a term of 32 years.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Troy Lee Bridges was charged in No. 17438 with the second degree

felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the indictment 

(CR-4&5) alleging that, on or about August 12, 2013, in Chambers County, 

Texas, he intentionally or knowingly threatened Leann Ball with imminent 

bodily injury by placing a firearm to her head, using or exhibiting a firearm 

during the commission of the assault. The State, by notice of intent to enhance 

(CR-54&55), further alleged six prior felony convictions for purposes of 

enhancement.

On August 11, 2014, jury voir dire was conducted (see RR7), and the 

jury empanelled (RR7-194). On August 12, 2014, the jurors were sworn 

(RR8-10), and Bridges plead not guilty (RR8-10&11). Thereafter, the State

presented three witnesses, and then rested (RR8-165). Bridges rested

without presenting any witnesses, and without testifying on his own behalf. 

RR8-166. After argument on behalf of Bridges (RR9-11-16) and on behalf of 
2

the State (RR9-16-28), the jury found Bridges guilty of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon as charged in the indictment (CR-73 and RR9-34-35).

Thereafter, an agreement was reached regarding punishment. RR9-

36&37. Bridges stipulated, in writing and in open court, that he had twice 

previously been convicted of a felony, the second felony having been 

committed after the first conviction had become final. CR-81 and RR9-52-54. 

He plead true to the allegation of two prior felony convictions as identified in 

his stipulation (RR9-55&56), and the court below sentenced him to 

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional 

Division for a term of 32 years (CR-82&83, CR-85&86, and RR9-57&58).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Bridges entered into a punishment agreement with the State. Prior to 

entering into that agreement, voir dire by the State suggested that Bridges 

was being tried as an habitual offender. Prior to entering into that agreement, 

Bridges was directly admonished by both the court below and by his defense 

counsel that he might have been subjected to a punishment range of 25 years 

to 99 years, or life, if he proceeded to a contested punishment hearing. Yet 

Bridges was not being tried as an habitual offender.
3

ARGUMENT

1. The court below erred in accepting the punishment agreement 

entered into by Bridges with the State, as neither the indictment (CR-4&5) nor 

the State’s notice of intent to enhance (CR-54&55) alleged that Bridges was an 

habitual offender.

2. The punishment agreement entered into by Bridges with the State 

was neither knowing nor voluntary, as Bridges was erroneously advised as to 

the range of punishment to which he might have been subjected.

3. Bridges received ineffective assistance of counsel in entering into the 

punishment agreement with the State.

Bridges was charged with, and tried for, the offense of aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon. CR-4&5 and RR8-10. Aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon is a second degree felony. Texas Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2) and 

(b). The punishment range for a second degree felony is confinemant in the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice for any term of not less than 2 years, 

and not more than 20, plus an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. Texas 

Penal Code § 12.33.

However, by its notice of intent to enhance, the State alleged six prior 

felony convictions for purposes of enhancement. CR-54&55. The punishment 

range for a second degree felony enhanced by one prior felony conviction is 

that of a first degree felony, confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice for any term of not less than 5 years, and not more than 99 years, or 
4

life, plus an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. Texas Penal Code § 12.42(b) 

and § 12.32.

With the apparent intent to punish Bridges as an habitual offender, the 

State alleged six prior felony convictions. CR-54&55. Texas Penal Code § 

12.42(d) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

... if it is shown on the trial of a felony offense ... that the 

defendant has previously been finally convicted of two felony 

offenses, 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 by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less 

than 25 years. ... 

To punish a defendant as an habitual felony offender, the State is thus 

required to allege and prove both two or more prior felony convictions, and 

that one of those was for an offense committed after an earlier felony 

conviction had become final.

In order to invoke the provisions of § 12.42(d), it is necessary that each 

succeeding conviction be subsequent both in point of time of the commission 

of the offense and the conviction therefore. Seals v. State, 604 S.W.2d 899, 906 

(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1982, no pet.). In order to invoke the provisions of the 

habitual felony statute, it is necessary to show that each succeeding conviction 

alleged for enhancement was subsequent both in point of time of the 
5

commission of the offense and the conviction therefor. McCarter v. State, 527 

S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975).

Although the State’s notice of intent to enhance alleged six prior felony 

convictions, it did not allege that any was for an offense committed after any 

of the remaining five had become final. Nevertheless, the assumption 

throughout Bridges’ trial appears to have been that he was subject to 

punishment as an habitual offender were he to be convicted, and were the 

State to prove two or more of the prior convictions alleged. See RR7-118&119 

– voir dire by the State, RR9-40 – admonishment of Bridges by the court 

below, and RR9-40 – admonishment of Bridges by defense counsel.

The stipulation of evidence (CR-81) signed by Bridges did list two prior 

felony convictions, the second for an offense committed after the first had 

become final. But that the second was for an offense committed after the first 

had become final was not alleged in either the indictment or in the State’s

notice of intent to enhance.

Bridges was erroneously advised as to the range of punishment to 

which he might have been subjected. During voir dire, the State asked the 

following:

If there was a law or there was a way that this case could be 

enhanced and the punishment for the same offense was 25 to 99, 

could anybody – could everybody follow that range of 
6

punishment, if that’s the law? Anybody on the first row got a 

problem with a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of life, or 

99?

RR7-118&119. There was no objection by defense counsel. Prior to accepting 

the punishment agreement, the court below admonished Bridges as follows:

And you realize that by doing this, that the full range of 

punishment comes open and it can vary? Obviously, if you have 

enhancement paragraphs, it can be 25 to 99, or life, if you don’t 

have some agreement.

RR9-40. There was no objection by defense counsel, who himself admonished 

Bridges as follows:

But for the agreement – what the Judge is saying, but for our 

agreement, the range of punishment was 25 to 99, or life.

RR9-40. Finally, the written plea admonishments, signed by Bridges, defense 

counsel, the State, and the court below, identified Bridges as an habitual 

offender, subject to confinement for life, or for any term of not more than 99 

years or less than 25. CR-79&80.

Bridges can only have relied on what he had been told. Immediately 

after being erroneously admonished by the court below and defense counsel, 

occurred the following:

The Defendant: Okay.

Mr. Dennison: Do you understand that?

The Defendant: Yeah.
7

The Court: Okay.

Mr. Dennison: And that was the reason we reached this agreement.

The Defendant: Oh, okay. All right. Yes.

RR9-40.

In fact, Bridges could not have been punished as an habitual offender. 

Had he proceeded to a contested punishment phase of trial, he could have 

been punished as a second degree felony offender, as a first degree felony 

offender pursuant to Texas Penal Code § 12.42(b), or, arguably, as a first 

degree felony offender with a prior felony conviction, pursuant to Texas Penal 

Code § 12.42(c)(1), depending on the jury’s findings regarding the allegations 

of six prior felony convictions.

If the trial court properly admonished the defendant before a guilty plea 

was entered, there is a prima facie showing the plea was both knowing and 

voluntary. Houston v. State, 201 S.W.3d 212, 217 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th

Dist.] 2006, no pet.). There is no such showing with regard to the punishment 

agreement entered into by Bridges – the court below erroneously advised him 

as to the range of punishment to which he might have been subjected.

A defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to the 

reasonably effective assistance of counsel. Lopez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 406, 416 

(Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref’d). This right does not mean errorless counsel, 
8

or counsel whose competency is judged by hindsight. Saylor v. State, 660 

S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). But the performance of Bridges’ 

defense counsel with respect to the punishment range to which Bridges might 

have been subjected fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 

Defense counsel failed to object to voir dire by the State suggesting that the 

punishment range might be 25 years to 99 years, or life. RR7-118&119. 

Defense counsel failed to object when the court below admonished Bridges 

that the punishment range might be “25 to 99, or life”. RR9-40. Defense 

counsel himself erroneously admonished Bridges that “the range of 

punishment was 25 to 99, or life.” RR9-40. Defense counsel failed to object to 

the written plea admonishments identifying Bridges as an habitual offender, 

subject to confinement for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or 

less than 25. CR-79&80.

If a guilty plea is entered upon the advice of counsel, that counsel must 

be competent and render effective assistance. To prove his claim of 

ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation 

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s defective performance, he would 

not have plead guilty, and would have insisted upon going to trial. Pena v. 

State, 132 S.W.3d 663, 668-669 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.).
9

Bridges, of course, did not plead guilty, but the same standard applies to 

a punishment agreement. The performance of Bridges counsel did in fact fall 

below an objective standard of reasonableness. There is not only a reasonable 

probability that, had he known of the correct punishment range, Bridges 

would have rejected the agreement for 32 years confinement, but also that, 

had all involved been aware of the correct punishment range, Bridges would 

have been offered an agreement for a lower term of confinement.

PRAYER

Appellant Troy Lee Bridges accordingly prays that the Court reverse his 

sentence of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice –

Institutional Division for a term of 32 years, and remand the case to the court 

below for a new punishment hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Troy Lee Bridges

Appellant

By: /s/ James F. Keegan

 James F. Keegan

 Texas Bar No. 11155400

 4421 Jim West Street

 Bellaire, Texas 77401

 713-668-4797

 whynyet@sbcglobal.net

 Attorney for appellant
10

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that the word count for the brief of appellant, in its 

entirety, is 2607 words.

 /s/ James F. Keegan

 James F. Keegan

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the brief of appellant was electronically served upon Eric 

Carcerano, Assistant District Attorney, Chambers County, Anahuac, Texas 

77514, ecarcerano@co.chambers.tx.us, using eFileTexas, on this the 12th day 

of February, 2015, but after 5:00 p.m.

 /s/ James F. Keegan

 James F. Keegan