legislative intent is the so-called ‘same elements' test of Blockburger,” but "even if a straightforward application of the Blockburger test would suggest that two offenses are not the ‘same’ for double jeopardy purposes,” the offenses are nevertheless considered the same, “if other indicia manifest a legislative intent that an accused not be punished for both offenses”) (citing Ex parte Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)); See also Ervin, 991 S.W.2d at 804 ("[T]he Blockburger test cannot authorize two punishments where the legislature clearly intended only one.”); 7 . See Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 372 (under an Ervin analysis, looking at charging instrument allegations to determine the underlying felony in felony murder prosecution); see also Hall, 225 S.W.3d at 533 n. 39 (<HOLDING>); Ervin, 991 S.W.2d at 807 (recognizing "the
recognizing that hunter involved a cognate pleadings analysis recognizing that pleadings in the underlying case are subject to judicial notice by an appellate court holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings holding that protective features of special exception procedure should not be circumvented by a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings where plaintiffs pleadings fail to state a cause of action