537 S.W.3d 39
Tex. Crim. App.2017Background
- Applicant (St. Aubin) shot five people at a 1998 Galveston Mardi Gras; charged with one murder and four attempted capital murders (all alleging Nava as the homicide victim). He was tried once, convicted on all counts, and received life sentences to run concurrently.
- Applicant previously filed multiple habeas applications (raising ineffective assistance and jury-charge errors); those initial applications were finally resolved by 2002. The present habeas applications were filed in 2015 as subsequent applications under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.
- Applicant raises for the first time a double-jeopardy claim that the attempted-capital-murder convictions constitute impermissible multiple punishments for the same offense.
- The State and the trial court (per dissent) concede that multiple-punishments error occurred and recommend vacating the attempted-capital-murder convictions while leaving the murder conviction intact.
- The Court majority holds the subsequent-application bar applies because applicant fails to satisfy either the innocence-gateway exception or the new-legal-basis exception to Art. 11.07 § 4; therefore the court dismisses the applications without reaching merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a multiple-punishments double-jeopardy claim in a subsequent habeas application may pass the § 4(a)(2) "innocence gateway" | St. Aubin: double-jeopardy multiple-punishments violated his rights and thus but-for violation no rational juror could have convicted on the extra counts | State: claim is a subsequent application and does not meet § 4(a)(2); multiple-punishments error typically occurs at sentencing, not at guilt-finding | Held: fails innocence-gateway — multiple-punishments claims occur at sentencing (after guilt), so they normally do not meet "at or before a finding of guilt" requirement for § 4(a)(2) exception |
| Whether Ex parte Milner (decided after applicant's earlier petitions) creates a "new legal basis" under § 4(b) allowing consideration of the subsequent habeas | St. Aubin: Milner supports relief and postdates his prior applications, so provides new legal basis | State: Milner’s reasoning relied on well-established double-jeopardy law and so did not present a legal basis unavailable earlier | Held: fails new-law exception — Milner and Saenz applied preexisting Supreme Court and Texas precedents, so the legal basis was reasonably formulable before applicant’s prior filings |
| Whether the court should accept the State’s waiver of procedural default and grant relief as recommended | Applicant/trial court: relief appropriate (vacate duplicate convictions) | State: conceded error (per dissent) but Majority notes § 4 contains no waiver-by-state exception; procedural-bar stands | Held: Majority declines to treat State concession as an exception to § 4 and refuses to consider merits; dissent would accept waiver and reform judgment |
| Cognizability of double-jeopardy claims on habeas (concurring view) | N/A (concurring justice argues double-jeopardy claims often non-cognizable on habeas because they are record-available and waivable) | N/A (majority analyzes § 4 exceptions instead of declaring non-cognizable) | Held (concurring): would dismiss on cognizability grounds; majority did not rule broadly on cognizability |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (defines double-jeopardy protections against successive prosecutions and multiple punishments)
- Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1985) (explains trial-era jury verdicts may be returned on multiple counts but judge should enter judgment on only one when offenses are the same)
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1978) (unit-of-prosecution analysis relevant to double-jeopardy multiple-punishment questions)
- Ex parte Milner, 394 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (granted relief where separate proceedings produced multiple convictions for the same conduct; relied on existing double-jeopardy precedents)
- Ex parte Knipp, 236 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (relief where State mistakenly charged same offense twice; atypical duplicate-charge situation)
- Saenz v. State, 166 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (applied unit-of-prosecution analyses in multiple-murder context)
- Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Texas precedent on multiple-punishment analysis)
- Ex parte Hawkins, 6 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Texas precedent on unit-of-prosecution issues)
- Evans v. State, 299 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discusses that double-jeopardy violation can occur even when sentences are concurrent and no greater punishment results)