Court Opinion

ID: 9666676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:25:07.675743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:32.001463
License: Public Domain

MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority today is overruling a well reasoned opinion from this Court, Tucker v. State, 811 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.). In my opinion, Tucker is good law.
In the process of overruling Tucker, the majority is relying on cases that are distinguishable in a material respect: none of the cases the majority relies on include the key component of the State raising the issue of whether a prior conviction was final through evidence put on by the State. In my opinion, if the State puts on evidence that raises an issue about whether a conviction is final, then the State has the burden to go forward and prove actual finality, even though the defendant has pled “true” to the enhancement paragraph.1
The majority does not dispute that, if the record affirmatively reflects that a prior conviction was not final, then the conviction cannot be used to enhance punishment, even though the defendant pled “true” to the enhancement allegation. Such was the holding in Sanders v. State, 785 S.W.2d 445, 448 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990, no pet.). Tucker logically extends the Sanders holding to support the conclusion that, if the State puts on evidence that affirmatively shows that a conviction was appealed and therefore may not be final, then the conviction cannot be used to enhance punishment unless the State resolves the issue and shows the appeal has come to an end. Tucker, 811 S.W.2d at 695-96.
Tucker is on “all-fours” with the present case. We have found no other reported case with the same facts. Tucker makes sense. We should follow Tucker.
Accordingly, I would sustain appellant’s first point of error and remand the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.
On en banc review, O’CONNOR and ANDELL, JJ., join Justice MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL’s, dissenting opinion.

. The general rule is that a plea of true removes the State's burden of proving enhancement allegations. I have no quarrel with the cases cited by the majority in support of that rule. (Harvey, Bonner, Axelrod). However, in those cases there was no indication that a prior conviction had been appealed — the records before the courts raised no question about finality of the prior convictions. If the record is silent about finality, the State has met its burden in the face of defendant’s plea of true; such is not the case here.