Derosier, Ex Parte Andre
PD-1510-15
| Tex. | Nov 20, 2015Background
- Appellant Andre Derosier was indicted on six counts of Indecency With a Child; the State offered eight years’ deferred adjudication for a plea.
- During trial, a plea agreement was reached; the indictment was amended and six indecency counts dismissed, with Derosier pleading no contest to a Terroristic Threat misdemanor.
- Derosier received a one-day sentence with one day credit and avoided jail time beyond that, after which he benefited from the bargained-for sentence for 12 years.
- Twelve years later, Derosier challenged the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the terroristic threat charge, arguing it was not a lesser-included offense.
- The Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed, holding estoppel did not apply to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the State petitioned for discretionary review.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that Derosier is estopped from challenging subject-matter jurisdiction due to benefiting from the plea and the lack of objection at the time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can estoppel bar a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge after a bargained plea? | Derosier argues estoppel should not bar review of jurisdictional defect. | State contends estoppel applies because Derosier benefited from the plea. | Yes; estoppel bars the jurisdictional attack. |
| Do Rhodes and Murray support estoppel in bargained-plea cases? | Rhodes/Murray imply estoppel may apply or be limited in such contexts. | State relies on Murray and Rhodes to show equitable estoppel applies. | Rhodes and Murray support estoppel in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (defendant barred from collaterally attacking too-lenient judgments)
- Murray v. State, 302 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (estoppel doctrine discussed in bargained-for judgments)
- Ex parte Sledge, 391 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (limits on using successive post-conviction writs)
- Ex parte Heilman, 456 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) ( estoppel/subject-matter jurisdiction interplay discussed)
- DeDonato v. State, 819 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (conceived limits on void vs voidable judgments)
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (dissent on beneficial acquiescence estoppel concept)
- McKinney v. State, 207 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (concurring views on estoppel and plea bargains)
- Prytash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (plea negotiations and sentencing considerations)