While a defendant is not required to plead guilty to the unadjudicated offense, the evidence must otherwise indicate his admission of guilt. Zapata v. State, 905 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex. App.โCorpus Christi 1995, no pet.). Furthermore, section 12.45(b) requires the sentencing court to have permission from the prosecutor with jurisdiction; it does not permit reliance upon the oral representations of defendant's counsel or the prosecutor from the court's own jurisdiction.
Although a defendant is not required to plead guilty to the unadjudicated offense, the evidence must otherwise indicate an admission of guilt. See Zapata v. State, 905 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.). Furthermore, section 12.45(b) requires the sentencing court to have permission from the prosecutor with jurisdiction over the unadjudicated offense; it does not permit reliance upon the oral representations of defendant's counsel or the prosecutor of the court's own jurisdiction.
The court announced that it would take the burglary offense into account in assessing punishment in the sexual assault case, and that it would bar further prosecution of the burglary case. See Zapata v. State, 905 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.) ("Section 12.45 does not require that a defendant plead guilty to an unadjudicated offense.
Section 12.45 does not require that a defendant plead guilty to an unadjudicated offense; rather, the statute requires that the defendant, during the punishment hearing, admit guilt to the unadjudicated offense. Zapata v. State, 905 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.). Following Texas Court of Criminal Appeals precedent in Lopez v. State, 253 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), this court has held that offenses barred under section 12.45 are neither convictions nor part of a defendant's prior criminal record.
The trial court's decision to grant Lackie's section 12.45 motion bars any further prosecution of Lackie for the indecency charge. Id. ยง 12.45(c); Wilkins v. State, 574 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Zapata v. State, 905 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.). However, the court's order does not constitute a conviction.