Weaponizing the ‘12.45’ Admission: Using Criminal Sentencing ‘Clean-Ups’ as Evidence of Fault and Endangerment in Family Court

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel, 02-25-00383-CR, February 05, 2026.

Synopsis

The Second Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant’s claim of double jeopardy, based on unadjudicated offenses being “taken into account” during a prior sentencing under Texas Penal Code Section 12.45, could be sustained on a deficient record. The Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, holding that without the specific motions and records from the prior proceeding, it was impossible to determine if the specific offenses currently being prosecuted were the ones previously admitted and considered for punishment.

Relevance to Family Law

While a criminal appellate matter, this case is a tactical masterclass for family law litigators dealing with a “bad actor” spouse. Section 12.45 of the Texas Penal Code is frequently used in “package deals” to resolve criminal exposure across multiple counties. However, a 12.45 admission constitutes a judicial confession. This ruling highlights the difficulty of proving exactly what was admitted in a 12.45 plea without a meticulous record. For a family law practitioner, obtaining the underlying “12.45 list” from a spouse’s criminal plea can serve as a silver bullet for proving fault in the breakup of the marriage or endangerment in a SAPCR, provided the litigator can overcome the record-gap issues identified here.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Bessie Tekila Martin was on deferred adjudication in Tarrant County for credit card abuse against an elderly victim. While on supervision, she was alleged to have committed several new offenses in Parker and Navarro counties, including stealing a debit card and jewelry from an elderly patient at a rehabilitation center. The Tarrant County District Attorney filed a petition to proceed to adjudication, listing these new “Unadjudicated Offenses.” During her adjudication hearing in Tarrant County, Martin signed plea admonishments that included a judicial confession and a request for the court to take the unadjudicated offenses into account under Texas Penal Code Section 12.45. Subsequently, a Parker County grand jury indicted her for the same conduct. Martin filed a writ of habeas corpus in Parker County, arguing that because the Tarrant County court had already “punished” her for these acts by taking them into account under Section 12.45, the subsequent Parker County prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the existing record was sufficient to establish that the Parker County offenses were actually “taken into account” by the Tarrant County court under Section 12.45, thereby triggering a double jeopardy bar to subsequent prosecution.

Rules Applied

The court primarily applied Texas Penal Code Section 12.45, which allows a defendant, with the state’s consent, to admit guilt to unadjudicated offenses and have them considered by the court during sentencing for a primary offense. Under Texas law, if a court “takes into account” an admitted offense under Section 12.45, prosecution for that specific offense is thereafter barred. The court also relied on the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and Texas Constitutions and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.08 regarding habeas corpus procedures.

Application

The Court of Appeals engaged in a granular review of the “paper trail” from the Tarrant County proceedings. It noted several discrepancies: the judgment of adjudication bore a different cause number than the petition to proceed to adjudication, and it referenced an “amended motion” that was nowhere to be found in the record. While Martin’s plea admonishments contained a general 12.45 admission, the court could not determine which specific offenses the Tarrant County judge actually considered. The legal story here is one of procedural insufficiency; Martin assumed the facts supported her legal theory, but the lack of a clear, unified record from the Tarrant County adjudication meant she could not prove the Parker County charges were the same ones “taken into account.”

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the record was insufficient to resolve the double jeopardy claim on its merits. Rather than affirming the denial of the writ, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.

The Court reasoned that because the 12.45 bar is a matter of both law and fact, the trial court must have the opportunity to review the missing “amended motion” and the full scope of the Tarrant County plea agreement to determine if a factual basis for the double jeopardy claim exists.

Practical Application

This case serves as a warning for family law attorneys seeking to use a spouse’s criminal history as leverage. A 12.45 admission is a powerful evidentiary tool—it is an admission of guilt to unadjudicated criminal conduct. However, as this case demonstrates, the “Judgment” alone may not be enough. You must secure the “Written Plea Admonishments,” any “Judicial Confession,” and the “Petition/Motion” that specifically lists the unadjudicated offenses. Without that specific link, a spouse may argue—as the State did here—that it is unclear whether their admission covered the specific bad acts you are alleging in the family law context.

Checklists

Scouring the Criminal Record for Family Court

• Request the “Written Plea Admonishments” from any prior adjudication or sentencing.
• Locate the “Judicial Confession” signed by the defendant; look specifically for Section 12.45 language.
• Ensure you have the “Motion to Revoke” or “Petition to Adjudicate” that contains the factual allegations of the unadjudicated offenses.
• Cross-reference cause numbers between the Judgment and the Plea Admonishments to ensure they match.
• Obtain any “Amended” motions referenced in the judgment but not attached to the standard record.

Weaponizing a 12.45 Admission

• Draft a Motion in Limine to ensure the 12.45 admission is treated as a judicial confession of the underlying conduct.
• Use the admission to establish “Fault in the Breakup of the Marriage” for a disproportionate share of the community estate.
• Cite the specific 12.45 conduct in a SAPCR to demonstrate “history of endangerment” or “impairment of physical health or emotional development.”
• Argue that the spouse’s request for the criminal court to “take the offense into account” constitutes an admission of the truth of the allegations under the Texas Rules of Evidence 801(e)(2).

Citation

Ex Parte Bessie Tekila Martin, No. 02-25-00383-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

URL: https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=a377a5e9-7a9c-4a45-b00f-c493ca330c2f&MediaID=91b9ebea-1176-4501-80e1-1c1bd400bcd6&coa=02&DT=Opinion

Family Law Crossover

The “weaponization” of Martin lies in the “judicial confession” inherent in a 12.45 election. In many high-conflict divorces, a party may have faced criminal charges (e.g., family violence, theft, or substance-related offenses) that were “cleared” via a 12.45 admission in a different case to avoid a long prison sentence. To a criminal lawyer, this is a “win” because it bars future prosecution. To a family lawyer, this is a “confession” that should be used to influence custody or property division.

Because the Second Court of Appeals found that a messy record can obscure what was actually “taken into account,” the savvy family litigator must not stop at the Judgment of Conviction. You must go behind the judgment to the “12.45 list.” If you can prove that the spouse admitted to a specific theft or assault to get a better deal in Tarrant County, they are judicially estopped from denying that conduct in a family court. However, Martin teaches us that if the paperwork is sloppy—missing amended motions or mismatched cause numbers—the “bad actor” spouse can escape the consequences of their admission in the civil arena just as they attempted to navigate the double jeopardy bar in the criminal arena.

~~2af58e75-d676-4f82-af6b-2fa352727df8~~