Bohannan v. State
546 S.W.3d 166
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Wayne Bohannan, a repeat sexual offender, was adjudicated a sexually violent predator and civilly committed under Tex. Health & Safety Code ch. 841 after prior convictions for sexual offenses.
- The commitment order required residence in a secure facility and 24/7 GPS monitoring (ankle bracelet + miniature tracking device); multiple "bracelet gone" alerts (Feb–Mar 2009) and subsequent incidents (refusals to sign requirements; facility disturbance) were alleged violations.
- The trial court adjudicated Bohannan and ordered commitment in January 2009; Bohannan appealed the civil-commitment judgment and the court of appeals later reversed that judgment for exclusion of his expert.
- While the civil-commitment appeal was pending (and before reversal mandate), the State indicted Bohannan under former Tex. Health & Safety Code § 841.085 for violating the civil-commitment requirements; a jury convicted him and, with enhancements, assessed life imprisonment.
- The central legal question presented to the Court: May a prosecution for violating a civil-commitment order be sustained when the underlying civil-commitment judgment was later reversed on appeal?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/Indictment sufficiency | Indictment identifies statutory offense (State) and thus confers jurisdiction | Bohannan: indictment invalid because underlying civil-commitment judgment was reversed and thus no valid order existed | Indictment sufficiently alleged an offense under §841.085; court had jurisdiction because instrument identified the offense regardless of later litigated facts |
| Status/finality requirement for §841.085 | State: conviction may rest on status at time of offense; no finality required | Bohannan: prosecution impermissible because commitment was reversed before his trial; statute requires a valid judgment | Court: follows Stevenson — §841.081 makes commitment effective immediately; status at time of violation controls, so conviction may be upheld though commitment later reversed |
| Sufficiency of evidence | State: exhibits (final judgment and order of commitment) proved adjudication and requirements; GPS alerts showed violations | Bohannan: reversal of the civil-commitment nullifies those documents so element cannot be proven | Evidence was sufficient: jury saw the Final Judgment and Order of Commitment (admitted without objection) and could rationally find adjudication and violations beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Due process / mootness of civil appeal | State: prosecution for violations does not render earlier civil appeal moot; civil appeal decided earlier and reversal occurred independently | Bohannan: prosecuting/convicting him despite reversal makes civil appeal meaningless and violates due process/due course of law | Court: defendant’s due-process claim inadequately briefed; on merits, conviction does not moot or nullify civil appeal; prosecution consistent with statute and precedent, so no reversible due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevenson v. State, 499 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (holding civil-commitment orders are effective immediately and status at time of violation controls)
- Ex parte Jimenez, 361 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (status-based offenses upheld where predicate status existed at time of offense)
- In re Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. 2004) (trial court may criminally punish contempt for violating an order that is on appeal; status at violation governs)
- Cuellar v. State, 70 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (setting-aside a prior conviction can remove predicate status; focus is status at time of the later offense)
- Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) (federal rule that prosecution under status-based offense depends on status at time of conduct despite collateral attacks on predicate conviction)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)