Denton, Ex Parte William Charles
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 792
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- In 2005, two complainants were robbed and assaulted at applicant's residence by applicant and two co-defendants.
- Two indictments charged one count each of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault per complainant; four charges total, with concurrent sentences.
- Applicant challenged that convicting both aggravated robbery and aggravated assault against the same victims in one transaction violated double jeopardy.
- The habeas petitions sought relief on double-jeopardy grounds and preservation of a self-defense instruction claim; the State declined to file a brief.
- The habeas court found potential double-jeopardy issues and the majority granted relief, preserving the aggravated-robbery convictions and vacating the aggravated-assault convictions.
- Court ultimately held that two aggravated-robbery/assault convictions violated double jeopardy and set aside the aggravated-assault convictions, keeping the aggravated-robbery convictions intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the convictions violate double jeopardy? | Denton argues two convictions punish the same offense for the same act against each victim. | State contends some unit of prosecution or legislative intent may support separate punishments. | Yes; double-jeopardy violation shown; set aside aggravated-assault convictions. |
| May the double-jeopardy violation be remedied in a habeas proceeding or is it procedurally defaulted? | The claim is facially apparent and remediable in habeas relief. | Preservation concerns may render the claim default; not remedied in habeas depending on record. | Remedied in habeas corpus; not procedurally defaulted. |
| If defaulted, did counsel's failure to object constitute deficient representation causing harm? | Trial/appellate counsel failed to raise the double-jeopardy issue. | Not necessary to address if claim is not properly preserved. | Issue rendered moot by relief on the underlying double-jeopardy claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (double jeopardy relief via habeas may be appropriate when clearly apparent on record)
- Ex parte Milner, 394 S.W.3d 502 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (habeas as proper venue to challenge double-jeopardy errors)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (finality and no substantial prejudice concerns in double-jeopardy relief)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (Blockburger starting point; focus on units and legislative intent)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. Supreme Court 1932) (same act may violate two statutes if each statute requires a different element)
- Gonzalez v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (Ervin analysis and legislative intent in double-jeopardy context)
- Langs v. State, 183 S.W.3d 680 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (two-step preservation framework for double-jeopardy claims)
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (cognate-pleadings approach to determine double-jeopardy implications)
- Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (Blockburger and Ervin analyses in Texas double-jeopardy)