Ex Parte: Victor Manuel Maguregui
08-15-00189-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- On December 3, 2012, Victor Maguregui crashed his car and was stopped by police; officers suspected intoxication and a blood test later showed an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more.
- While stopped, officers found two ounces or less of marijuana on Maguregui’s person; he pled guilty to misdemeanor possession on March 18, 2013.
- After the possession conviction, the State charged Maguregui with DWI alleging operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated and an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more.
- Maguregui filed a habeas application arguing double jeopardy barred the DWI prosecution because the possession conviction could be used to prove intoxication (e.g., via a “synergy” theory).
- The trial court denied habeas relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the Blockburger same-elements test and declining to consider trial evidence or hypothetical prosecutorial strategies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars prosecution for DWI after a prior marijuana possession conviction arising from the same incident | Maguregui: possession could be used to prove intoxication (synergy), so prosecuting DWI constitutes multiple punishment / same offense | State: Blockburger same-elements test controls; DWI and possession have distinct elements, so double jeopardy does not bar the DWI prosecution | Court: Affirmed denial of habeas—offenses have different elements; same-elements test controls; no double jeopardy bar and petitioner failed to show legislative intent to limit punishment to one offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes the same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (abandoned Grady same-conduct rule; affirmed Blockburger framework)
- Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (discussed—same-conduct approach later rejected)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (concurrent punishments and legislative intent presumption)
- Ex parte Castillo, 469 S.W.3d 165 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (applies same-elements test under cognate-pleadings approach)
- Ex parte Benson, 459 S.W.3d 67 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015) (overlap and legislative intent in multiple-punishment analysis)
- Langs v. State, 183 S.W.3d 680 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (types of double jeopardy claims and multiple-punishment context)
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (cognate-pleadings approach to element comparison)
- Chamberlain v. State, 294 S.W.2d 719 (Tex.Crim.App. 1956) (evidence of liquor as circumstance for DWI—distinguished from possession proving use)