Steve Milam LeBleu v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-99-00647-CR

Steve M. LEBLEU,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1998-CR-1722

Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 16, 2000

AFFIRMED

Steve LeBleu pled no contest to felony driving while intoxicated and, pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court sentenced him to four years imprisonment as a repeat offender and fined him one thousand dollars. We affirm.

LeBleu was indicted for felony driving while intoxicated. The indictment alleged five prior misdemeanor convictions for driving while intoxicated and a prior federal felony conviction for mail fraud. LeBleu filed a motion to dismiss the indictment alleging it was "defective because the State ... alleged more than two prior DWI convictions [and] [a]llowing the jury to hear allegations of more than two prior convictions is prejudicial to the defendant and does not confer jurisdiction to the court and should be excluded from the indictment." At the hearing on the motion, the State abandoned the allegations in the indictment regarding three of the misdemeanor driving while intoxicated convictions, and the trial court denied the motion to set aside. In the course of the brief hearing, LeBleu's attorney stated "had this case gone to trial, we'd be willing to stipulate to the fact that this Court has jurisdiction, and ... they're good prior convictions." Immediately thereafter, LeBleu entered his plea.

LeBleu's sole point of error states: "The trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to read to the jury the felony D.W.I. indictment which alleged seven prior D.W.I. convictions." In his brief, LeBleu alleges the trial court "would not accept appellant's offered stipulation, and ruled that the State would be allowed to read the full indictment to the jury, and present evidence of all seven alleged prior D.W.I. convictions." He contends his plea was based on these adverse rulings. Not even the most generous interpretation of the record supports these allegations.

LeBleu did not make an offer to stipulate to prior convictions, the trial court did not indicate it would reject such an offer, and LeBleu did not ask the trial court to rule on whether evidence of the prior convictions would be admissible in the event of trial. Thus LeBleu failed to preserve for review his only point of error. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. The only ruling made by the trial court was that, in light of the State's abandonment of all but two of the prior driving while intoxicated convictions, the motion to set aside the indictment was denied. LeBleu does not complain of that ruling on appeal. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish