— ”) (West 2006). 29 . Muniz, 573 S.W.2d at 794. 30 . Id. 31 . Nixon, 2014 WL 2553372, at *1-2. 32 . Id. 33 . See Muniz, 573 S.W.2d at 794. 34 . See Seedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (explaining trial judges' discretionary power to cumulate punishments). See also Tex. Penal Code § 3.03(a) (West 2006). 35 . Ex parte Johnson, 697 S.W.2d at 607-08, 36 . Id. at 606. 37 . Id. at 607-08. 38 . Woodard v. State, 898 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.App-San Antonio 1995, pet. ref’d). 39 . Id. at 5. 40 . Id. at 6. 41 . Id. 42 . See Tex. Penal Code §§ 3.03(a), 12.42(a-b), 38.04(b)(2)(A), 30.02(c)(2) (West 2006). 43 . Beedy, 250 S.W.3d at 110. See Tex: Penal Code § 3.03(a). 44 . Post, at 573-74 (Yeary, J., dissenting). 45 . See Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377, 379-80 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>) 46 . Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.10(b). 47 .
holding that the discretionary function does not apply where the decisionmaker lacks authority holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact holding that judgeimposed cumulation does not offend the sixth amendment and further noting that where within the statutory range punishment should be assessed and whether to cumulate the sentences imposed is a normative discretionary function that does not turn on discrete findings of fact holding that defendant should be resentenced where district court imposed a sentence under an erroneously calculated guidelines range  even where the sentence imposed fell within the correct range holding that consideration of a state jail felony to enhance punishment was not harmless even though the sentence actually assessed fell within the lawful range