Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Robert Ell Edwards v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-03-00248-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 24, 2004; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Robert Ell Edwards was convicted of felony DWI by a jury in the 158th District Court of Denton County, Texas, and sentenced to sixty years in confinement. Edwards appealed, claiming the judgment was void due to the "amended indictment" being filed after the trial concluded and asserting that the evidence was insufficient to establish the timeline of his prior felony convictions relevant to the enhancements. The court found that the live pleading adequately notified Edwards of the enhancement allegations and determined that the evidence presented was legally and factually sufficient to support those allegations. The original indictment listed Edwards' prior felony convictions in reverse chronological order, creating an inconsistency regarding the timing of the offenses. The State filed a motion to amend the indictment on April 14, 2003, to correct this sequencing. An order was signed on April 17, 2003, to grant this motion, although the amended indictment was not filed until May 12, 2003, after the judgment was signed. During the trial on May 5, 2003, the prosecutor indicated the trial would proceed under the amended indictment, and Edwards did not object. Evidence presented during the punishment phase included certified pen packets documenting Edwards' prior felony convictions, which contained his identifying information and detailed descriptions of the offenses. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Edwards' arguments regarding the indictment and the sufficiency of the evidence. The officer who arrested Appellant confirmed that Appellant provided his personal information, establishing his identity. Evidence indicates that Appellant’s prior felony DWI occurred after his burglary conviction became final. Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the second enhancement conviction listed in the indictment was committed after the first enhancement conviction was finalized, but does not dispute the existence of the two prior felony convictions. The Court clarifies that enhancement allegations do not need to be included in the original indictment and that the State’s motion to amend adequately notified Appellant of the enhancement allegations in the correct order. Following the amendment, it became the effective pleading for enhancement purposes. The sufficiency of evidence should be evaluated based on the elements of a hypothetically correct jury charge for the enhancements. Appellant's stipulation and the admitted pen packets are deemed sufficient evidence for the sequential felony convictions as outlined in the State's motion to amend under section 12.42(d) of the penal code. Consequently, the Court overrules Appellant’s second and third points. Regarding Appellant's first point, which claims that the amended indictment was filed after the trial concluded, the Court finds that this does not affect the validity of the enhancement paragraphs, as the original indictment is not the relevant pleading. Therefore, all of Appellant’s points are overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.