Christopher Garfias v. State
381 S.W.3d 626
Tex. App.2012Background
- Garfias shot Shahid Shahid at a gas station in 2006, injuring him severely.
- Grand jury indicted Garfias for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
- Trial jurors convicted Garfias on both counts; sentences were 60 years for aggravated robbery and life for aggravated assault, to run concurrently.
- appellate court previously held double jeopardy claim wasn’t preserved and relied on Blockburger to find no duplication.
- On remand, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held a double jeopardy violation was clearly apparent on the face of the record and vacated the lesser offense while affirming the greater.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the double jeopardy clause bar Punishments for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault | Garfias argues both convictions violate double jeopardy. | State contends no double jeopardy violation under Blockburger and related authorities. | Yes; double jeopardy violation; vacate aggravated robbery conviction, keep aggravated assault conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (elements test for multiple punishments; not controlling where legislative intent shows otherwise)
- Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (factors for legislative intent to treat offenses as same or different for double jeopardy)
- Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Blockburger is a tool, not exclusive; other indicia of intent matter)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (multiple punishments under single transaction considerations)
- Littrell v. State, 271 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (presumption against multiple punishments when offenses include all elements of the other)
- Lopez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (single transaction and sequential steps can violate double jeopardy if each step isn't separate)
- Jones v. State, 323 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (gravamen focus informs legislative intent for multiple punishments)
- Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (certain offenses cannot be stacked when one is subsumed by another in the same incident)