Brooks, 957 S.W.2d at 33 says the State need no longer include an enhancement paragraph in an indictment (although that remains the recommended method). But, more recent cases, such as Ford, indicate that unless the factual issue (as to prior convictions) is first "joined," the sentencing court must ignore the State's proof. I cannot reconcile these holdings and thus I guess Brooks is effectively overruled? I observe that the Defendant in Villescas, 189 S.W.3d at 292 was required to plead to the "enhancement allegation" contained in the State's "notice of enhancement." That procedure does not seem to derive from art. 36.01 (the basis for the holding in Ford). But, is that the answer? You join issue upon whatever "pleading" the State chooses to utilize?

Sort of the opposite problem as we have in Wooldridge - on its second PDR, still pending. There the State put on evidence of priors but trial judge refused to make a finding and would not enhance as a habitual.