Dangelo, Ex Parte Joseph P.
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 818
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Joseph P. Dangelo pled guilty to the felony offense of injury to a child under a negotiated plea agreement and received seven years of deferred-adjudication community supervision starting February 26, 2008.
- The indictment originally contained four type-written counts alleging sex offenses against the named child; a handwritten fifth count alleging injury to a child was added on February 26, 2008.
- During supervision, the court added sex-offender treatment and related conditions when supervision was transferred to Denton County; the original order had no sex-offender conditions.
- The State filed petitions to proceed to adjudication; some petitions were dismissed, but sex-offender conditions remained and Dangelo challenged them in habeas corpus proceedings.
- The Court of Appeals held that while Dangelo could not be compelled to answer parts of a polygraph that could connect to a future prosecution for the unrelated counts, he could be compelled to discuss facts related to counts 1–4 because the State may not use those facts in a future prosecution; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this approach.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately held that, due to double jeopardy, the State cannot prosecute counts 1–4 and thus Dangelo may be compelled to discuss those facts as a condition of supervision, declining to grant Fifth Amendment protection for those questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May appellant be compelled to discuss indictment counts 1–4 after pleading to count 5? | Dangelo argues Fifth Amendment protections preclude compelled discussion. | State argues jeopardy precludes future prosecution but allows compelled discussion as a condition of supervision. | Appellant may be compelled; double jeopardy bars future prosecution of counts 1–4. |
| Did the court of appeals err by treating the State’s assurances as binding immunity for counts 1–4? | Dangelo contends the State cannot grant immunity or bind the court. | State contends any assurances do not bind, but jeopardy prevents prosecution regardless. | State’s assurances are not binding immunity, but jeopardy bars prosecution, supporting compelling questioning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (probationer Fifth Amendment rights in relation to independent offenses)
- Ortiz v. State, 933 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (jeopardy attachment and plea considerations in negotiated pleas)
- Chapman v. State, 115 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (probationer Fifth Amendment rights and future incriminating statements)
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1973) (protects against compelled testimonial and non-testimonial incriminations)