Chandler v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Chandler v. State

21 S.W.3d 922, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 4473, 2000 WL 890704

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 6, 2000

DocketNo. 14-99-00484-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 21 S.W.3d 922 (Chandler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chandler v. State, 21 S.W.3d 922, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 4473, 2000 WL 890704 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PAUL C. MURPHY, Chief Justice.

A jury convicted appellant, Anwar Iquill Chandler, of aggravated kidnapping. With one enhancement paragraph, to which he pleaded “true,” the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment.

In his sole point of error, appellant claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court’s instruction to the jury that they find the enhancement paragraph “true.”

[923]*923The State argues that appellant’s plea of true to the enhancement paragraph, as well as appellant’s stipulation that he was the same person convicted of the offense charged in the enhancement paragraph, relieves them of the burden of proof on the enhancement.

This identical issue has been decided in the State’s favor on at least two separate occasions, once by the Court of Criminal Appeals and once by this court. See Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Urbano v. State, 808 S.W.2d 519, 528 (Tex.App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 1991, no pet.). The opinions in both cases clearly stated the rule that a plea of “true” to enhancement paragraphs relieves the State of the burden of proof on those issues. Based on this line of precedent, we overrule appellant’s point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PAUL C. MURPHY, Chief Justice.

A jury convicted appellant, Anwar Iquill Chandler, of aggravated kidnapping. With one enhancement paragraph, to which he pleaded “true,” the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment.

In his sole point of error, appellant claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the trial court’s instruction to the jury that they find the enhancement paragraph “true.”

[923]*923The State argues that appellant’s plea of true to the enhancement paragraph, as well as appellant’s stipulation that he was the same person convicted of the offense charged in the enhancement paragraph, relieves them of the burden of proof on the enhancement.

This identical issue has been decided in the State’s favor on at least two separate occasions, once by the Court of Criminal Appeals and once by this court. See Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Urbano v. State, 808 S.W.2d 519, 528 (Tex.App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 1991, no pet.). The opinions in both cases clearly stated the rule that a plea of “true” to enhancement paragraphs relieves the State of the burden of proof on those issues. Based on this line of precedent, we overrule appellant’s point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.W.3d 922, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 4473, 2000 WL 890704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-state-texapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack