J o rd a n v . S ta te (Jo rda n II ) , N o. 2- 05- 029- C R , 2006 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3367, at 1 *5 ( T ex. A pp.
— For tW or t h A pr . 27, 2006) ( notdes i gnat ed forpubl i cat i on) ( ci t i ng Jor dan v . S ta te (Jor dan I

) , N o. 2- 01- 530- C R , 2003 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 4737, at*2 ( T ex. A p p . — F o rtW o rth Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 3 ) (no t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n )). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 973- 06
EL M ER R A Y JO R D A N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S ECON D CO URT O F AP PEALS

DENTO N CO UNTY K E A S L ER , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h M E YE RS , P RI CE , W OMACK , J OHNS ON , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P .J ., f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on. O P I N I O N T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e a p p lica tio n o f a h a rm a n a ly sis is n o t ap p ro p ria te
w hen the St at e fa i l ed t o pr o ve the pr opers equenc e of J or dan’ s t w o pr i orconvi ct i ons for puni s hm entenhanc ement purpos es u n d er the habi tual fel ony - enhanc ements t atut e. T he 1J O R D A N —2

I d. at*12. 2 See T EX . H EAL TH & S AF ETY C OD E A NN . § 4 81
. 11 2(f) (V ernon 2 00 3), l ast 3 amended byA ct s 2001, 77t h L eg. , ch. 1188, § 2, eff
. Sept
. 1, 2001. T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 1 2
. 4 2 (d) (V ern o n 2 0 0 3 ). 4 c o u rt re v e rse d th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t an d re m a n d e d th e c a se f o r a n e w p u n ish m e n t trial. 2 W e h o ld th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls p ro p e rlyre jec ted th e S tate ’s c o n ten tio n th a t a h a rm a n a ly sis is a p p ro p ri a te . Backg r ound J or dan w as char ged by i ndi ctm ent w i t h t he fel ony offe ns e of pos s es s i on of 9 8 8
. 76 gr ams of coc ai ne w i t h i ntent to d eli ver . T he i ndi ctm ental s o i ncl uded tw o enhanc ement 3 par agr aphs al l egi ng t hatJ or dan had tw o pr i or s equent i al fel ony convi ct i ons forpos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance i n O kl ahoma. T he fi r s tenhanc ementpar agr aph al l eged t hatJ orda n had a pr evi ous convi ct i on forpos s es s i on fr om J une 1988, and the s econd enhanc ement parag rap h al l eged thathe had a pr evi ous convi ct i on forpos s es s i on fr om N ovember 1992. J or dan pl eade d gui l t yt o t he pr i m ary offe ns e and ent er ed pl eas of nott rue t o t he tw o pr i orO kl ahoma poss es sion co n v ic t i ons befor e the j ur y . T he j ur yfound J or dan g u il tyo f th e p ri m aryo ff en se a n d fo u n d b o th en h an ce m en t para g rap h s to b e true . T h e jury t hen s ent ence d J or d an t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , t he maxi m um s ent ence al l ow ed undert he h ab itu al fe lon y -of

fe n d er statute, T ex as P en al C o d e S ec ti o n 1 2
. 4 2 (d). 4 Jo rd a n a p p e a led , arg u in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to pr ove thatt he N ovember 1992 fel ony p o s s es s i on convi ct i on w as comm i t t ed af t ert he J uneJ O R D A N —3

Jor dan (Jor dan I

) , 2003 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 4737, at*5. 5 Id
. at*6- 9, 16. 6 I d. at*6- 9. 7 I d. at*7 ( ci t i ng W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 83 7 S
. W . 2d 75 9, 76 4 (T ex. A pp . — E l P aso 8 1 9 9 2 , n o p e t.); P a tterso n v . S ta te , 7 2 3 S .W .2 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 6 (T e x . A p p .— A u stin 1 9 8 7 , p e t. g ran ted)).

Id
. at*7- 8 ( ci t i ng Mc C ra ry v . S ta te , 604 S. W . 2d 113, 116 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 9 1 9 8 0 ); W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 5 9 6 S .W .2 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); Hickm a n v . S ta te , 5 4 8 S .W .2 d 7 3 6 , 7 3 7 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); J o h n so n v . S ta te , 784 S. W . 2d 413, 414- 15 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 )).

I d. at*8. 10 1988 fel onypos s es s i on convi ct i on beca m e fi nal as r equi r ed underT exas Penal C ode Sect i on 12. 42( d)
. T he For t W or t h C our t of A ppeal s agr eed w i t h J or dan and r emanded t he ca s e for

5
a n ew tr ial o n p u n ishm en t. In re m an d ing the c ase fo r a n ew p u n ishm en t h ea ri n g , the F o rt 6 W o rth C o u rt o f A p p e a ls reje c ted th e S tate ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e e rro r w a s h a rm les s a n d h e ld t hata harm anal y s i s i s i nappr opr i at e. O bs ervi ng t hat ot hercour t s of appe al s have a ppl i ed 7 a harm anal y s i s i n t hi s cont ext , t he courtconcl uded thatt hi s C our thas neverunder t aken a 8 har m anal y s i s w hen hol d ing thatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tan enha ncement al l egat i on. T he courtw enton t o not e t hat t he S t at e i ncorr ect l ycat egor i zed the err oras t r i al

9
err or . A ccor di ng t o t he cour t , t he S t at e fai l ed “t o m eeti t s evi dent i arybur den of pr oof, ” and

10
as a r es ul t , t he evi dence w as l egal l yi ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng t hatt he p o ss e ss io n o f

f e n se th a t J o rd a n w a s c o n v icte d o f in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 2 w a s c o m m itt e d a f ter h isJ O R D A N —4

Id
. 11 Id
. 12 Jor dan (Jo rda n II

) , 2006 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3367, at*2- 3. 13 Id
. at*3- 4. 14 Id
. at*4- 5. 15 Ju n e 1 9 8 8 p o ss e ss io n c o n v ictio n b e c a m e f in a l. 11 A thi s s econd pun ishm en t tr i al , J or dan aga i n ent er ed pl eas of nott rue t o t he
e n h a n c e me n tp a r a g r a p h s . Th e S t a t e o f f e r e d , a n d th e t r i a l j u d g e a d mi t t e d , J o r d a n ’ s Ok l a h o ma peni t ent i arypacke t t hat cont ai ned i nfor m at i on aboutJ or dan’ s pr i orO kl ahoma convi ct i ons i nt o evi dence
. T he i nfor m at i on i n t he pac ket , how ever , fai l ed to i ndi cat e w hen J or dan
comm i t t ed the pos s es s i on offe ns e forw h ich he w as convi ct ed i n N ovember1992. N evert hel es s , t he j ur y found bot h enhanc ement al l egat i ons t o be true and s ent ence d J or dan to n inety -nin e y ea rs’ i m p ri so n m en t un d er S ec ti o n 1 2
. 4 2 (d). 12 Jo rd a n a p p e a led a g a in , cla im in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s le g a lly i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove thatJ or dan comm i t t ed the s econd poss es s i on offe ns e aft er hi s J une 1988 po ssess i on convi ct i on w as fi nal
. T he St at e ar gued thatt he j ur ycoul d i nferfr om t he 13 i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n t h e Okl a h o m a peni t ent i arypacke tt hatJ or dan comm i t t ed the s econd p o sses sion o ff

en se af ter h is first p o sses sion co n v ict ion b ec am e fina l. T h e F o rtW o rth C o u rt 14 of A ppeal s di s agr eed, s t at i ng t hat t her e w as “no evi dence i n t he re cor d r efl ect i ng t he dat e on
w hi ch [Jor dan] comm i t t ed the s econd e nhance m entfel ony [. ] ” T he courtt hen r ej ect ed, for 15J O R D A N —5

Id
. at*5. 16 I d. 17 Id
. at*12. 18 9 4 7 S
. W . 2 d 2 6 2 (19 9 7 ). 19 I d. at264. 20 a s econd t i m e, t he St at e’ s cl ai m t hat t he fi ndi ng w as nothar m ful
. R el y i ng on i t s opi ni on 16 i n Jor dan I, the co u rt h eld t h at a ha rm an aly sis i s n o t app rop ri ate in this co n text. T h e c o u rt 17 t hen r ever s ed t he tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm entand r emanded t he ca s e fora new t r i al on p u n ish m e n t. 18 St at e’ s P et i t i on f or D i s cre t i onary R evi ew T h e S tate p e tit io n e d u s f o r re v iew c h a llen g in g th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls’s re f u sa l to a p p ly
a h a rm a n a ly sis . W e g ra n ted re v iew to a d d re ss th e f o llo w in g q u e stio n : D i d the cou rt of ap peals erri n refusi ng t o co nd uct a harm analy si s i n thi s case w her e the evi dence s uppor t i ng an enha ncemental l egat i o n w as found t o be in su f f icie n t w h e n th is c o u rt h a s p re v io u s ly h e ld th a t o n ly“ stru c tu ra l” c o n s t i tu t i o n a l e r r o r s a r e c a t e g o r i c a l l yi mmun e t o h a r ml e s s e r r o ra n a l y s i s ? T he St at e ar gues t hatourdeci s i on i n C a in v . S ta te out l i nes t he curr entl aw r egar di ng 19 t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f a h a r m a n al y s i s . I n C a in , w e hel d t hat“[e ] xceptforcert ai n fede r al
co n sti tuti o n a l erro rs l ab eled b ythe U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtas ‘struc tural, ’ no erro r,
w h e th e r it re late s to ju risd ictio n , v o lu n tar in e ss o f a p lea , o r a n yo th e r m a n d a to ryre q u ire m e n t, i s cat egor i cal l y i m m une t o a har m l es s err or anal y s i s . ” A “s t ructur al ” err or“af fec t [s ] t he 20 fram ew ork w i t hin w hich t he tr i al proceed s, rather th a n sim p l yan err or i n the tri al processJ O R D A N —6

A riz o n a v . Fu lm in a n te , 4 9 9 U . S
. 2 7 9 , 3 1 0 (19 9 1 ). 21 R ose v. C l ark , 4 7 8 U . S
. 5 7 0 , 5 7 7 (19 8 6 ). 22 Fu lm in a n te , 499 U
. S. at309- 10. 23 I d. a t 3 0 7 -0 8 ; s ee N

ederv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 7 U . S
. 1 , 8 -15 (19 9 9 ). 24 i t s el f” and “r ender [s ] a tr i al fundament al l yunfai r . ” A ccor di ngl y , su ch err or s ar e not

21 22 amenabl e t o a harm anal y s i s . C onver s el y , cons t i tut i onal t r i al err or , w hi ch “oc cur [s ] dur i ng 23 t he pr es ent at i on of the ca s e, ” i s s ubj ectt o a harm anal y s i s b ec au se the err orcan “ be quant i t at i vel yas s es s ed i n t he cont extof otherevi dence pr es ent ed i n o rdert o det erm i ne”
w h e th e r t h e e rr o r “ w a s h a rm le s s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” 24 T he S t at e asser t s t hat the co urtof ap peals err ed in r efusi ng t o ap plya harm analy si s. T he S t at e argues t hat t he cou rt of app eal s err on eou sl y rel i ed on preceden tt hat pr edates C a in
as s uppor tfor i t s deci s i on t hata harm anal y s i s i s notappr opr i at e. T he St at e mai nt ai ns t hat
w hen a j ur ym akes an err oneous fi ndi ng of true t o an enha ncementpar agr aph, t he err ori s not “struc tural. ” T h e on ly ri g h t im p li ca ted, ac co rdin g to th e S tat e, i s the d ef en d an t’ s statutory
r i ghtt o have the j ur yi ns t ruct ed on t h e cor r ectr ange of puni s hm ent . T he err orati s s ue, t her efor e, i s t he “j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on of t he w r ong puni s hm ent r ange. ” Fi nal l y , cl ai m i ng t hat t he evi dent i aryi ns uffi ci encyi s harm l es s , t he St at e ar gues t hatt he puni s hm entevi dence m ay
s t i l l s u p p o r tt h e p u n i s h m e n ta s s e s s e d b y t h e j u r y. J or dan ar gues t hat t he St at e fa i l ed t o m eeti t s evi dent i arybur den of pr oof as r equi r ed
u n d e r S e c tio n 1 2 .4 2 (d ) o f th e T e x a s P e n a l C o d e . A n d b e c a u se th e S tate f a iled to m e e t it sJ O R D A N —7

T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 1 2 .4 2 (d ). S e e g e n e ra lly B ro o k s v . S ta te , 957 S. W . 2d 25 3 0 , 3 2 (19 9 7 ).

T o m lin v . S ta te , 7 2 2 S .W .2 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ); s ee al s o V aldez 26 v . S ta te , 2 1 8 S
. W . 3 d 8 2 , 8 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).

I d. ; P o rte r v . S ta te , 566 S. W . 2d 621, 622 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1978) ( ci t i ng 27 W ig g in s v . S ta te , 5 3 9 S .W .2 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ); Hi ckm an , 548 S. W . 2d at 7 3 7 ). bu rden, t he ev i den ce i s i nsuff i ci ent and categori cal l yi m m un e from a harm analy si s.

L aw T exas Penal C ode Sect i on 12. 42( d) governs p u n i s hm entenhanc ementforhabi tual f e lo n yo f f e n d e rs: [I ] f i t i s s h o wn o n t h e t r i a l o f a f e l o n yo f f e n s e o t h e rt h a n a s t a t e j a i l f el ony puni s habl e underSect i on 12. 35( a) that t he def endanthas pr evi ous l ybeen fi nal l yconvi ct ed of tw o fel onyoffe ns es , and the s econd pr evi ous fel ony convi ct i on i s foran off ens e thatoccurr ed s ubs equentt o t he fi r s tpr evi ous convi ct i on havi ng become fi nal , on convi ct i on he s hal l b e puni s hed by i m pr i s onm enti n t he i ns t i tut i onal di vi s i on of the Texas D epart m e n tof C r i m i nal J us t i ce f orl i fe, orfor a nyt erm of notm or e than 99 y ear s orl es s t han 25 y ears . 25 E x p lain in g h o w S e c tio n 1 2 .4 2 (d ) o p e ra tes , w e h a v e sa id th a t “[ t]h e [ c h ro n o lo g ica l]
s equenc e of e vent s m us t be pr oved as fol l ow s : ( 1) t he fi r s tconvi ct i on becomes fi nal ; ( 2) t he offe ns e l eadi ng t o a l at er convi ct i on i s comm i t t ed; ( 3) t he l at erconvi ct i on becomes fi nal ; ( 4) t he off ens e forw hi ch defe ndant pr es ent l y s t ands acc us ed i s comm i t t ed. ” T he St at e ca r r i es 26 t he bur den of pr ovi ng bey ond a re as onabl e doubt t hat a defenda nt ’ s s econd pr evi ous fel ony
c on v i c t i o n wa s c o mmi t t e d a f t e rt h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s f

i r s tp r e v i o u s f

e l o n yc o n v i c t i o n b e c a me fi nal. A nd w hen “t here i s no evi dence t o s how t hatt he of fe n ses w ere comm i t t ed and 27J O R D A N —8

T o m lin , 7 2 2 S
. W . 2 d at 70 5 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). 28 Hi ckm an , 5 4 8 S .W .2 d a t 7 3 6 ; P or t er , 5 6 6 S .W .2 d a t 6 2 2 ; Wi l l i a ms , 596 S. W . 2d 29 a t 9 0 3 -0 4 ; Mc C ra ry v . S ta te , 6 0 4 S .W .2 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 3 -1 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); Jef f ers on v . S ta te , 6 1 1 S .W .2 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ); E x p a rte A u g u sta , 639 S. W . 2d 4 8 1 , 4 8 3 -8 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ), r ev’ d on othergr ounds
. J o n e s v . S ta te , 7 1 1 S .W .2 d 6 3 4 , 6 3 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ); R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 30 7 9 0 S .W .2 d 6 5 5 , 6 5 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ); S c o tt v. S ta te , 553 S. W . 2d 361, 364 ( T ex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ).

R u ss e ll , 7 9 0 S .W .2 d a t 6 5 6
. 31 Id
. ( ci t i ng Jones , 7 1 1 S .W .2 d a t 6 3 6 ). 32 beca m e fi nal i n t he pr opers equenc e, t he def endant’ s s ent ence m aynotbe enha nced unde r th e S ta te ’s h a b itu a l o f

f e n d e r s ta tu te s .” 28 A s not ed byt he courtof appe al s , ourca ses pre dat i ng our1997 deci s i on i n C a in d e m o n stra te th a t w e h a v e n e v e r c o n sid e re d th e a p p lica tio n o f , o r co n d u c ted , a h a rm a n a ly sis aft erconcl udi ng t hatt he St at e fa i l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci ent ev iden ce t o pr ove the pr oper
s equenc e of the def

endant ’ s pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons forenhanc ement p u rpo ses under Sect i on 12. 42( d)
. Si m i l ar l y , w e have never appl i ed a har m anal y s i s w her e the St at e fa i l ed 29 t o es t abl i s h t hatan enha ncementconvi ct i on w as fi nal befor e the d ef endantcomm i t t ed the p rim a ry o f

f e n se . In f

a c t, w e h a v e e x p licitlyd isa v o w e d th e a p p lica tio n o f a h a rm a n a ly sis 30
w her e the St at e fa i l ed t o m eeti t s bur den of s how i ng fin ali ty . I n doi ng s o, w e s ai d: “A 31 har m l es s err oranal y s i s s houl d notbe undert aken w hen t he St at e fai l s t o m eet i t s bur den of p ro o f.” 32 A n a ly sisJ O R D A N —9

Mu rp hy v . S ta te , 777 S. W . 2d 44, 63 n. 10 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1989) ( pl ur al i t yon 33 re h e a ri n g ).

B a rr o w v . S ta te , 2 0 7 S .W .3 d 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 -8 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). 34 See T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . §§ 12. 42- 12. 43. 35 S e e W ilso n v . S ta te , 6 7 1 S
. W . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 6 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ). 36 See M ur phy , 7 7 7 S .W .2 d a t 6 3 n .1 0 ; P re sto n v . S ta te , 457 S. W . 2d 279, 281 37 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 7 0 ). A t t he s ent enci ng phas e, nei t her par t y carr i es t he bur den of pr ovi ng w hatpuni s hm ent
s houl d be as s es s ed w i t hi n t he s t atut or i l ypr es cr i bed r ange a ppl i cabl e t o a g iven offe ns e. 33 G ener al l y , t he fa ct fi nder ’ s deci s i on of w hatpar t i cul ar sen te nce t o as s es s i s a “norm at i ve, d iscreti o n aryfu n cti o n ” tha t do es n o t dep en d o n the re so luti o n o f sp ec ifi c f ac ts. H o w ev er, 34
w hen the St at e s eeks t o enhanc e a de fenda nt ’ s s ent ence fort he pr i m ary offe ns e byal l egi ng t hata def

endanthas a pr i orconvi ct ion , and t he def endantent er s a pl ea of

nott rue, t he 3 5 36 fac t fi nderm us tdeci de w hethert he St at e has s us t ai ned i t s bur den byent er i ng a fi ndi ng t hat t he enha ncemental l egat i on is ei t hert rue ornott rue. I n es s ence , t he as s es s m entof 37 puni s hm enti nvol ves t w o t ypes of del i ber at i ons w hen t he St at e has al l eged, and the def endant h a s en ter e d a p lea o f n o t tru e to , a p rio r co n v ictio n u se d f o r en h a n c e m e n t p u r p o s e s . F irst, t he fa ct fi nderengage s i n a deduc t i ve, di s cr et e fa ct - fi ndi ng pr oces s t o det erm i ne w hethert he St at e has pr oved t hat t he enhance m ent al l egat i on i s t rue. A nd s econd, cons i der i ng al l of the evi dence admi t t ed during the gui l tand puni s hm entphas es , t he fa ct fi nderengage s i n a
nor m at i ve pr oces s t hat i s uni nhi bi t ed byanyr equi r ed, s peci fi c fa ctdet erm i nat i on t o deci deJ O R D A N

— 10

Mur phy , 777 S. W . 2d at62- 63, 63 n. 10. 38 Mo n g e v . C a lif

o rn ia , 5 2 4 U . S
. 7 2 1 , 7 3 4 (19 9 8 ). 39 See Burk

s v. U ni t ed Stat es , 437 U
. S. 1, 15 ( 1978) ( di s cus s i ng t he di ffe r ence 40 b etw ee n tr ial erro r an d ev iden ti arysu ff ici en cy ). w hatpar t i cul arpuni s hm entt o as s es s w i t hi n t he r ange pr es cr i bed byl aw . W hen a r evi ew i ng 38
c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e S tate ’s e v id e n c e f a ils to sh o w th a t an e n h a n c e m e n t alle g a tio n is t rue, t he D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e does notbart he us e of the enha ncementconvi ct i on dur i ng
a re trial o n p u n ish m e n t. 39 T ur ni ng t o t he ca s e befor e us, w e cannot acc ept t he S t at e’ s and t he di s s ent ’ s ar gum ent t hatt he err or at i s s ue i nvol ves t he j ur y ’ s cons i der at i on of the i ncorr ectr ange of puni s hm ent
as oppos ed t o t he St at e’ s fai l ur e t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence
. H er e, i n acc or d w i t h our p re c e d e n t, th e iss u e f

ra m e d b yJo rd a n in th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls p re se n ted a d ire c t ch a llen g e to t he l egal s uffi ci encyof the ev iden ce to s uppor tt he j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng of true t o t he s econd
e n h a n c e m e n t alle g a ti o n . I n th is c a se , b o th th e S tate a n d th e d iss e n t ar e a ttem p tin g to tr an sfo rm Jo rda n ’s claim into so m ethin g that itis no t— trial erro r. T h e e v iden ti ary 40 i ns uffi ci ency , r athert han ens ui ng fr om ac ti on ori nact i on on t he partof the tr i al j udge,
r es ul t ed fr om t he j ur y ’ s uns uppor t ed d et erm i nat i on t hatt he St at e’ s evi dence s uppor t ed a f in d in g o f tru e to th e s e c o n d e n h a n c e m e n t a lle g a tio n . H avi ng det erm i ned that J or dan’ s poi nt of er r or ques t i oned t he l egal s uffi ci encyof the
ev ide nce, w e now cons i derw hethert he appl i cat i on of a ha r m anal y s i s i s appr opr i at e. A dv ocati ng for t he ap pli cat i on of a h arm analy si s, t he S t at e asser t s that the cou rtof ap peals ,J O R D A N

— 11

T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 2. 41 T EX . H EAL TH & S AF ETY C OD E A NN . § 4 8 1
. 1 1 2 (f). 42 i n r efus i ng t o conduct s uch an anal y s i s , equat ed t he S t at e’ s fai l ur e t o m eeti t s bur den of pr oof f o r pu n ish m e n t e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r S e c tio n 1 2 .4 2 (d ) w ith th e S tate ’s f a ilu re to m e e t i ts bur den of pr oof t o s uppor ta convi ct i on. T he St at e cl ai m s t hat , al t hough a harm anal y s i s can
neverbe us ed w her e ther e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta convi ct ion b ec au se the
e v id e n c e w ill n e v e r j u stif y a c o n v ictio n , a h a rm a n a ly sis c a n b e a p p lied w h e re th e S tate f a ils to su sta in its b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g a n e n h a n c e m e n t alle g a tio n . A h a rm a n a ly sis is a p p lica b le in th is c o n te x t b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e m a ys till s u p p o rt th e ju ry’s p u n is h m e n t a s s e s s m e n t. A s r ecogni zed byt he St at e, s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence w i t h r egar d t o a convi ct i on and
su ff ici en cyw ith reg ard to a p ri o r co n v ict ion all eg ed fo r en h an ce m en t p u rpo ses in v o lve v ery di ffe r ent cons i der at i ons . H ow ever , des pi t e t hes e di ffe r ence s , w e conc l ude that , even i f the St at e’ s fai l ur e t o pr ove the chr onol ogi cal s equenc e of puni s hm entenhanc emental l egat i ons
as r equi r ed under Sect i on 12. 42( d) i s s ubj ect t o a harm anal y s i s , s uch a de fi ci encyw i l l never be co nsi dered h arm l ess. 41 H er e, had the j ur ypr operl y found thatt he St at e fa i l ed t o pr ove thatt he N ovember 1992 pos s es s i on convi ct i on ( t he s econd e nhance m ent a ll eg at i on) w as comm i t t ed af t ert he Ju n e 1 9 88 pos s es s i on convi ct i on ( t he fi r s tenhanc emental l egat i on) beca m e fi nal , t he ap p li ca b le ran g e o f im p ri so n m en t w o u ld h av e b ee n l i f e o r an yw h ere b e tw ee n fiftee n y ea rs and ni net y -nine y ear s . N ot abl y , t he fi r s tenhanc ementpar agr aph, byi t s el f, had no ef fec t 42J O R D A N

— 12

C om pa re T EX . H EAL TH & S AF ETY C OD E A NN . § 4 8 1
. 1 1 2 (f) w i th T EX . P ENA L 43 C OD E A NN . 12. 42. T EX . P E N A L C OD E A NN . § 1 2
. 4 2 (d). 44 St at e v. A l l en , 8 6 5 S
. W . 2 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 4 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ). 45 C f. U rib e v . S ta te , 6 8 8 S .W .2 d 5 3 4 , 5 3 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ), over r ul ed on 46 o th e r g ro u n d

s b y C a rtw rig h t v. S ta te , 8 3 3 S .W .2 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); s ee al s o D I X & D AW SO N , 43 T EXAS P RAC TI C E AND P R OC EDU R E §§ 36. 53, 36. 55 ( 2nd ed. 2 0 0 1 ). Mu lli n s v . S ta te , 409 S. W . 2d 869, 872 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1966) ( opi ni on on

47 reh ea ri n g ). o n the t erm o f im p ri so n m en t ava il ab le fo r th e p ri m aryo ff en se. B u t w ith the ju ry ’s 43
uns uppor ted fin d ing of true t o t he s econd e nhance m entpar agr aph, t he l ow erend of the pu nis hm ent r ang e w as i ncreased from fi ft een y ears t o tw enty -fi ve y ears . 44 W i t h t he dual del i ber at i on pr oces s i nvol ved i n t he as s es s m entof puni s hm enti n m i nd, t he j ur y ’ s hi s t or i cal fac tdet erm i nat i on t hatt he s equent i al enhanc emental l egat i ons w er e true sett he rang e of p un i shm ent appl ica b le to th e pri m aryoff ense. Itw as then w i t hin tho se 45 p a ra m e ter s th a t th e ju ryw a s f re e to e x e rc ise it s d is c re tio n a ry , n o rm a tiv e f u n c tio n . A n d in
ex erc isi n g it s n o rm ati v e jud g m en t abo u t w h at pa rt icular se n tenc e to a sses s, the ju ry ’s
uns uppor t ed fi nd ing o f t rue t o t he s econd e nhance m ental l egat i on coul d veryw el l have gener at ed an i nher ent , i ns t i tut i onal pr es s ur e t o i m pos e a gr eat ersen te nce. I ndeed, t he 46 leg isla tiv e p u rp o se b e h in d th e h a b itu a l f e lo n y -e n h a n c e m e n t sta tu te is to p u n ish m o re h a rsh ly per s ons w ho r epea t ed ly co m m i tcr i m es . R ecogni zi ng t hats oci etys anct i ons i ncr eas ed 47 puni s hm ent for habi tual offe nder s , a j ur ym aybe i ncl i ned t o as s es s a more l engthys ent enceJ O R D A N

— 13

I d. ; s ee al s o D I X & D AW SO N , 43 T EXAS P RAC TI C E AND P R OC EDU R E §§ 36. 53, 48 3 6
. 5 5 (2n d ed
. 2 0 0 1 ).

C f. C o lella v . S ta te , 9 1 5 S
. W . 2 d 8 3 4 , 8 4 5 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). 49 i n an effo rtt o co nfo rm t o society ’s exp ect at i on s. 48 T he pr obl em w e conf

r onti s t hati n t he abs ence of di s cr et e, obj ect i ve fa ct s deci ded by a j ur yi n as s es s i ng puni s hm ent , t her e i s no w ayt o q u an t i fyw hati m pactt he uns uppor t ed fi ndi ng of true had on t he j ur y ’ s nor m at i ve s ent enci ng funct i on. A ccor di ngl y , anyat t empt t o cal cul at e how t he j ur yexer ci s ed i t s nor m at i ve func t i on i n as s es s i ng J o rdan’ s s ent ence
w o u ld n ec essa ri lyen tai l pu re sp ec u lat ion
. U n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s, the S tat e’s f ail u re 49 t o m eeti t s bur den of pr oof, even i f s ubj ect ed t o a harm anal y s i s, ca n n ev er be dee m ed h a rm le s s . C oncl usi on B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e ther efor e conc l ude t hat t he cour t of appe al s w as corr ect in re f u sin g to c o n d u c t a h a rm a n a ly sis in th is c a se . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls is aff i r m ed, and thi s cas e i s r emanded t o t he tr i al cour tfora new puni s hm enthear i ng.

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : J une 18, 2008 PU BL I SH