EX PARTE Eric Michael HEILMAN, Appellee
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 328
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- In October 2008 Beaumont PD officer Eric Heilman omitted a confidential informant/undercover operation from a probable-cause affidavit; a grand-jury probe followed but no indictment was filed.
- By December 22, 2010 Heilman pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor (tampering with a governmental record) in exchange for the State foregoing a state-jail felony indictment; he signed written waivers expressly relinquishing statute-of-limitations defenses and received six-month deferred adjudication.
- The two-year statute of limitations for the misdemeanor had expired in October 2010, before his plea; the State contends the felony (longer limitations) remained viable.
- Heilman later filed habeas relief arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept a plea to a time-barred offense (relying on Phillips v. State and related precedent); the habeas court granted relief and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Court reconsidered whether statute-of-limitations defenses that appear on the face of the charging instrument (so-called “pure-law” defenses) are jurisdictional/absolute or forfeitable/waivable, particularly where plea bargains are involved.
- The Court held there was no legislative ex post facto violation here, overruled Phillips to the extent it treated pure-law limitations claims as category-one absolute rights, and ruled such limitations defenses are Marin category-three forfeitable rights that a defendant may waive as part of a good-faith plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statute-of-limitations defense that appears on the face of the charging instrument is a non-forfeitable, jurisdictional (Marin category‑one) right | Heilman: a "pure law" limitations bar shown on the face of the information is an absolute jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived; plea thus void | State: limitations is not jurisdictional here; Heilman expressly waived the defense as part of a plea to avoid a felony indictment | Held: Such limitations defenses (absent a legislative ex post facto violation) are Marin category‑three forfeitable rights and may be waived in plea bargaining; Phillips’s pure‑law rule overruled |
| Whether Phillips v. State’s factual/pure‑law distinction should control when no ex post facto or legislative revival exists | Heilman: Phillips controls; face‑barred charges are forever barred and cannot be revived or waived | State: Phillips improperly elevated ordinary limitations claims to absolute rights and undermines plea finality; no legislative action here | Held: Phillips’s extension treating pure‑law limitations as category‑one was erroneous in non‑ex‑post‑facto contexts and is overruled |
| Effect of plea bargaining and waiver on a time‑barred charge | Heilman: plea to time‑barred misdemeanor is void for lack of jurisdiction despite waiver | State: defendant may forfeit or expressly waive limitations to obtain plea benefits; equity disfavors taking plea benefits then collaterally attacking jurisdiction | Held: Courts must protect the finality/sanctity of good‑faith, arm’s‑length pleas; express waiver/forfeiture binds defendant absent a legislative ex post facto problem |
| Whether judicial acceptance of a plea where limitations expired constitutes an ex post facto violation or due process problem | Heilman: accepting plea to time‑barred charge is equivalent to permitting retroactive prosecution | State: Ex Post Facto Clause targets the Legislature; no legislative revival or retroactive statute here; no Ex Post Facto violation | Held: No ex post facto violation shown; Ex Post Facto principles apply only where legislative action (or equivalent delegated legislative power) is at issue; judicial acceptance of waiver does not trigger the Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (articulates three Marin categories for rights: absolute, waivable-only-on-record, and forfeitable-on-request)
- Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (held limitations defenses are generally forfeitable unless preserved)
- Phillips v. State, 362 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (previously distinguished factual vs. pure‑law limitations and treated pure‑law as non‑forfeitable; overruled in part here)
- Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) (held legislative revival of previously time‑barred prosecutions can violate the Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Ieppert v. State, 908 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (explains Ex Post Facto Clause as a nonwaivable legislative prohibition)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (addresses Ex Post Facto concerns where non‑legislative actors’ rules had binding statutory consequences; used to analyze limits of Ex Post Facto application)
- Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (1984) (defendant cannot insist on statute‑of‑limitations protection while obtaining benefits tied to lesser‑included instructions; choice/waiver principle)
- State v. Yount, 853 S.W.2d 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (defendant who requests a lesser‑included instruction cannot later attack conviction as time‑barred)