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.
Ernest Stokes v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-04-00119-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 2, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ernest Stokes was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to ten years in prison by the Travis County District Court. The judgment included an affirmative finding that Stokes used a firearm during the offense. Stokes challenged this finding on two grounds: first, he argued that section 3g(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code does not apply to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and second, he claimed that the affirmative finding constituted multiple punishments for the same offense, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court overruled these challenges and upheld the conviction. The incident involved Linda Fowler, who was attacked by Stokes, who accused her of infidelity while intoxicated. Stokes physically assaulted Fowler, using his fists, a beer bottle, and later a shotgun, with threats to kill her and ongoing violence throughout the day. Fowler managed to escape when a police officer's presence prompted Stokes to set down the shotgun. The indictment against Stokes included multiple counts of aggravated assault, detailing various means of causing injury and threatening Fowler with deadly weapons. The court did not specify which counts led to the conviction, but Stokes's argument centered on the claim that the inclusion of the affirmative finding was an improper application of the law and constituted double jeopardy. Stokes did not object to the trial court's affirmative finding nor raised any related arguments in his motion for a new trial, which is required for preserving error under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a). A double jeopardy claim must be evident on the record when presented for the first time on appeal. All felonies can theoretically have an affirmative finding under section 3g(a)(2), and the statute's wording regarding the use of a deadly weapon does not restrict its application to offenses that do not inherently involve such use. Stokes provided no supporting authority to contest the application of section 3g(a)(2) to aggravated assault cases involving deadly weapons; existing authority supports its applicability. The court clarified that an affirmative finding does not change the punishment for the offense but affects eligibility for community supervision and parole. Community supervision is considered a privilege, and the trial court holds discretion over its imposition. Stokes's claim that the affirmative finding increased his minimum sentence from zero to two years is incorrect, as the minimum for a second-degree felony is two years imprisonment. Furthermore, his double jeopardy argument fails as the aggravated assault conviction and the affirmative finding were based on different conduct, specifically the use of a shotgun versus strangulation with a wire cord. Consequently, the court upheld the affirmative finding and found no double jeopardy violation, affirming the conviction.