Benson, Yusulf Shaheed
459 S.W.3d 67
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Applicant was convicted of intoxication assault (Tex. Penal Code §49.07) and felony DWI (§§49.04 & 49.09) arising from the same October 17, 2010 car crash that caused serious bodily injury to Charles Bundrant.
- The felony DWI conviction rested on proof of two prior DWI convictions, which the State treated as elements that elevate DWI to a felony.
- Applicant filed a habeas petition arguing that convicting and punishing him for both intoxication assault and felony DWI based on the same transaction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause (multiple punishments). He relied on a multi-factor (Ervin) analysis and urged treating the priors as punishment enhancements rather than elements (citing Bigon).
- The State argued the two prior convictions are properly treated as elements of felony DWI for many procedural and substantive purposes, supporting cumulative punishment.
- The Court applied the Blockburger same-elements test first (different statutes → elements analysis) and then applied the Ervin multi-factor test to decide whether the legislative intent rebutted the Blockburger presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Applicant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intoxication assault and felony DWI (based on two priors) are the same offense for double-jeopardy when from the same transaction | The two priors are mere punishment enhancements and not separate elements; under Ervin factors the offenses should be treated as the same (no double jeopardy) | The two priors function as elements of felony DWI (jurisdictional, pleadable, proved at guilt stage), so offenses have different elements and cumulative punishments are permitted | Court held they are not the same offense for double-jeopardy purposes; convictions may stand |
| Whether Blockburger’s same‑elements test is satisfied | Applicant urged a liberalized Blockburger treating priors like enhancements so elements align | State relied on precedent treating priors as elements (proved at guilt stage), so Blockburger shows distinct elements | Court found different elements under Blockburger (intoxication assault requires serious bodily injury; felony DWI requires priors) |
| Whether Ervin factors rebut the Blockburger presumption | Applicant: chapter placement, similar names, same punishment range, and Bigon-style reasoning support single punishment | State: procedural/substantive consequences of priors, unit-of-prosecution differences, legislative history weigh against single punishment | Court applied Ervin factors and concluded they do not rebut presumption; factors against same-offense are controlling |
| Whether legislative history or structure clearly shows intent to authorize only one punishment | Applicant: placement in same chapter and titles support single-punishment inference | State: longstanding statutory treatment, jurisdictional exception in art. 36.01, and courts historically treating priors as elements show no such clear legislative intent | Court found no clear legislative intent to allow only one punishment and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (applied multi‑factor analysis to find single punishment in related intoxication homicide context)
- Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (sets non‑exclusive multi‑factor test for when differing Blockburger elements may nonetheless be a single offense)
- Gibson v. State, 995 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (construed prior DWI convictions as elements defining felony DWI)
- Lomax v. State, 233 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (held felony DWI is not a lesser‑included offense of intoxication manslaughter because priors are not included in manslaughter elements)
- Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (used Ervin factors and unit‑of‑prosecution focus to find offenses distinct)
- Wilson v. State, 772 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (discussed distinction between elements and punishment enhancements under prior DWI statutory schemes)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy/multiple punishments)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (double‑jeopardy protects against multiple punishments and explains elements/units analyses)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1981) (Blockburger is a rule of statutory construction and yields to clear legislative intent)