Court Opinion

ID: 9800252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:10:14.342964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:05.291019
License: Public Domain

In The
                               Court of Appeals
                      Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                      No. 07-22-00152-CR

                             ELLIOT VENTURA, APPELLANT

                                              V.

                            THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                           On Appeal from the 100th District Court
                                     Carson County, Texas
                   Trial Court No. 7100; Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding

                                       August 29, 2023
                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       A jury convicted Appellant Elliot Ventura of evading arrest in a motor vehicle.1 At

the punishment phase of trial, Appellant pled “true” to two prior felony convictions; the jury

assessed punishment at 30 years of confinement in the penitentiary.              On appeal,

Appellant argues the record affirmatively shows that one of his prior convictions is not

       1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04.
final under Texas law because he had received probation which has not been revoked.

Agreeing with Appellant, we reverse and remand the case for a new trial on punishment.

                                             Background

        An indictment charged that on May 3, 2021, Appellant committed the offense of

evading arrest or detention in a motor vehicle.                Subsequently, in a notice to seek

enhanced punishment, the State alleged Appellant had two prior final felony convictions

in Wisconsin, what we will refer to as the “-404” case2 and the “-050” case.3 A jury

convicted Appellant of the charged offense and found he used or exhibited a deadly

weapon while committing the offense.

        At punishment, the State introduced enhancement evidence of the Wisconsin

convictions in the -404 and -050 cases. Appellant pleaded true to both enhancement

offenses. The jury found both convictions true and assessed punishment at confinement

in prison for a term of thirty years. Thereafter, Appellant brought this appeal.

                                               Analysis

        In his sole issue, Appellant argues the prior conviction in the -050 case was a

judgment for probation and thus not a “final conviction” under the enhancement statute.

        2 That is, Cause 2009CF000404: Wisconsin v. Ventura, in Circuit Court Branch #5 of Kenosha Co.,

Wis. Appellant was convicted for manufacture/delivery of cocaine of more than 5–15 grams, and sentenced
to five years in the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. It appears Appellant was confined in prison for
two-and-a-half years before he was released on parole for three-and-a-half years. This sentence was said
to run “consecutive” to Cause 2009CF372, wherein Appellant was found guilty of battery/threat to a witness.
The State did not seek to enhance based upon the 372 matter. Likewise, the State did not seek to enhance
Appellant’s sentence based upon his guilt in Cause 2013CM000646, for criminal trespass to a dwelling.
        3 That is, Cause 2012CF00050: Wisconsin v. Ventura, in Circuit Court Branch #6 of Kenosha Co.,

Wis. Appellant was convicted of possession of THC (2nd offense). Appellant was placed on probation
“concurrent to” the -404 case.

                                                    2
This is relevant because under section 12.42(d) of the Texas Penal Code, the Appellant

would 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, if the evidence shows

Appellant previously had 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. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d).

       Only convictions that are “final” can be used for enhancement purposes. Ex parte

Murchison, 560 S.W.2d 654, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A probated sentence is not

“final” for enhancement purposes unless the probation has been revoked. Ex parte Pue,

552 S.W.3d 226, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Ex parte Langley, 833 S.W.2d 141, 143

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Ex Parte Murchison, 560 S.W.2d at 656. We determine whether

Appellant’s conviction was “final” pursuant to Texas law, not the law of Wisconsin. See

Pue, 552 S.W.3d at 233.

       It is ordinarily the State’s burden to prove Appellant’s convictions are final. Id. at

231.   This burden is satisfied when, as here, the Appellant pleads “true” to the

enhancement paragraph. Harrison v. State, 950 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 1997, writ ref’d) (citing Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. App.

1981)). This does not end our analysis, however. Despite a plea of true, an Appellant

may challenge the finality of an offense used for enhancement if the record “affirmatively

reflects” that such offense was not, in fact, final. Mikel v. State, 167 S.W.3d 556, 559–60

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). See also Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d

508, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Sanders v. State, 785 S.W.2d 445, 448 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1990, no pet.).

                                             3
       Appellant does not challenge consideration of his conviction in the -404 case for

enhancement purposes. However, he contends the conviction in -050 is not final because

he was put on probation, and it has not been revoked. State’s Exhibit 11 includes a

document from Wisconsin purporting to be a “Judgment of Conviction.” It indicates

Appellant received probation in the -050 case. A “comments” section states the probation

is “concurrent to” the -404 case.

       In 2013, a “Revocation Order and Warrant” was signed by the Wisconsin

Department of Corrections “secretary’s designee.” It indicates Appellant’s probation was

revoked for the -404 case. The State reasons Appellant’s probation in the -050 case must

have been revoked, as well, given the earlier order’s reference to the two sentences being

concurrent. But that is not what the record states.

       The revocation order only references the -404 case, not -050. A box is checked

beside the order’s language, “Not all Cases Revoked.” The order also makes no mention

of a jail time credit for the -050 case, which would have been required under Wisconsin

law. See State v. Lovell, 2018 WI App 8, 379 Wis. 2d 766, 909 N.W.2d 209, 2017 Wisc.

App. LEXIS 1048, at *11 (citing WIS. STAT. § 973.155(2) (sentence credit determination

must be included in the revocation order)).

       The State relies on the Second Court of Appeals’ decision in Lugo v. State for its

argument that Appellant fails to show the record “affirmatively reflects” the offense in the

-050 case was not final. 299 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d). We

find Lugo distinguishable by its facts. In that case, after pleading true, Lugo argued on

appeal his conviction for DWI was not a felony. Rejecting his argument, the court of

                                              4
appeals relied in part on Lugo’s “pen packet,” which described the DWI offense as “driving

while intoxicated and felony repetition,” along with the range of punishment being

consistent with a felony. Lugo, 299 S.W.3d at 455–56. In this case, the record shows

without dispute that Appellant received probation in the -050 case. Moreover, despite

revocation of probation in -404, the revocation order’s omission of -050 and statement

that “Not all Cases Revoked” affirmatively shows Appellant’s probation in -050 had not

been revoked. Based on the record before us, Appellant’s conviction in the cause number

-050 was not final for enhancement purposes and could not, therefore, be used for that

purpose. We sustain Appellant’s issue.

                                      Conclusion

      We affirm Appellant’s conviction, but reverse that portion of the judgment

assessing punishment and remand for a new punishment hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 44.29(b).

                                                       Lawrence M. Doss
                                                           Justice

Do not publish.

                                            5