Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-25-2021
Case Style:
Gerald Wayne Howard v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 10-19-00024-CR
Judge: JOHN E. NEILL
Court: IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Gabriel Price
Sterling A. Harmon
Barry N. Johnson
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Waco, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Gerald Wayne Howard with an assault family violence charge.
Howard and S.P. were in a dating relationship, and she was pregnant with his
child. In November 2017, when she was eight or nine months pregnant, Howard and S.P.
Howard v. State Page 2
got into an argument over naming the baby. S.P. testified that Howard hit her in the
mouth causing an injury.
PUNISHMENT
In two issues on appeal, Howard complains about the assessment of seventeen
years confinement as punishment. In the first issue, he contends that it was error to
charge the jury with a punishment range up to twenty years because there was no
pleading and no possible finding that would permit punishment beyond ten years under
Section 12.42 of the Texas Penal Code. In the second issue, Howard argues that a sentence
over ten years is illegal without a proper finding or a proper plea of “true” that he had
previously been convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony as required by Section
12.42.
Howard was indicted for the offense of assault family violence with a prior
conviction based upon the altercation with S.P. The enhancement allegation in the
indictment stated that:
… prior to the commission of the primary offense, on the 22nd day of
January, 2015, in the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas, in
Cause Number 2014-2189-C, [Howard] was convicted of a felony, to-wit:
Continuous Family Violence, and the said conviction became final prior to
the commission of the primary offense
At the start of the punishment phase of the trial, the State informed the trial court that in
reviewing the enhancement allegation, it was found that the conviction in Cause Number
2014-2189-C was not for Continuous Family Violence as stated in the indictment, but
Howard v. State Page 3
rather for Assault Family Violence with a Prior Conviction. The State abandoned the
“surplusage” after the word felony to omit “Continuous Family Violence.” The
enhancement allegation then read that Howard was convicted of a felony and the said
conviction became final prior to the commission of the primary offense. Howard’s
counsel stated that he had no objection to abandoning the language, and Howard entered
a plea of true to the enhancement allegation. The jury was charged at punishment:
Now you shall find True from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that
the Defendant, Gerald Wayne Howard, was on the 22nd day of January,
2015, in the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas, in Cause
Number 2014-2189-C, the said Gerald Wayne Howard was convicted of a
felony, and the said conviction became final prior to the commission of the
primary offense, and so state in your verdict that you find "True" the
allegation in the Enhancement Allegation and assess the punishment of the
Defendant at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division for any term of years not less than two (2) years nor
more than twenty (20) years; and in addition thereto, you may assess a fine
in any amount not to exceed $10,000.00.
Howard did not object to the trial court’s charge on punishment.
Assault Family Violence with a Prior Conviction is a third-degree felony. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01 (b) (2) (West Supp. 2019). Section 12.42 of the Texas Penal
Code provides that “if it is shown on the trial of a felony of the third degree that the
defendant has previously been finally convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony
punishable under Section 12.35(a), on conviction the defendant shall be punished for a
felony of the second degree.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42 (a) (West 2019).
Howard v. State Page 4
Howard specifically complains that the jury charge stated an incorrect punishment
range because Section 12.42 (a) requires proof of a felony other than a state jail felony and
the charge alleged he was convicted of a felony without specifying that it was not a state
jail felony. Howard states that he is not complaining that he had insufficient notice of the
prior conviction or that there was a variance between the pleading and proof. Howard
argues that the enhancement allegation read to the jury had no legal importance because
it was vague and failed to allege the kind of felony required for enhancement. We
disagree.
Allegations of prior convictions for the purpose of enhancement give pretrial
notice to a defendant that the state intends to seek greater punishment and allow a
defendant to prepare a defense. Roberson v. State, 420 S.W.3d 832, 840 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013). The evidentiary sufficiency is measured by the hypothetically correct jury charge.
Id. Such a hypothetically correct jury charge is one that accurately sets out the law, is
authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the state's burden of proof
or unnecessarily restrict the state's theories of liability, and adequately describes the
particular offense for which the defendant was tried. Id. We have held that the
hypothetically correct jury charge need not incorporate allegations that give rise to
immaterial variances. Id. Sometimes the words in the indictment do not perfectly match
the proof at trial. Id.
Howard v. State Page 5
Any error in the jury charge did not rise to the level of egregious harm. See Foster
v. State, 530 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex. App. —Waco 2017, no pet.). Howard had notice that
the enhancement allegation was for a felony other than a state jail felony, entered a plea
of true to the enhancement allegation, and offered no objection to the court’s charge on
punishment. The evidence at the punishment phase of the trial supported a finding that
he was convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony. There was a proper finding of
true to the enhancement allegation. We overrule the first and second issues on appeal.
Outcome: We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: