in Re State of Texas Ex Rel, Tharp, Jennifer
393 S.W.3d 751
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Faulkner charged with felony DWI; pleaded guilty in exchange for a four-year sentence, $2000 fine, two-year license suspension, and a deadly-weapon finding.
- Trial judge Waldrip questioned Faulkner’s connection to the judge and ordered a presentence investigation before accepting the plea.
- Discussion of whether the deadly-weapon finding would affect sentencing and probation; judge expressed reluctance to include the finding.
- Judge Waldrip ultimately rejected the plea, set the case for jury trial, and Faulkner elected punishment by the judge at trial.
- At trial, Faulkner pled guilty before a jury, the State claimed the plea made the trial unitary and punishable by the judge; Waldrip maintained judge would assess punishment.
- State sought mandamus; this Court granted a stay and ultimately conditionally granted mandamus directing Waldrip to submit all issues, including punishment, to the jury so long as Faulkner’s guilty plea remained in place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a guilty plea before a jury require jury-punishment under statute? | State: punishment must be decided by jury in guilty-plea cases. | Waldrip: no clear rule; punishment by judge is permissible. | Article 26.14 yields jury punishment default; not required when not waived. |
| Can the defendant waive jury-punishment before voir dire under Article 37.07 or 1.13? | State: waiver possible under Art. 37.07. | Waiver requires consent and proper timing; not satisfied here. | Waiver not properly established; jury must decide punishment unless valid waiver. |
| Is mandamus appropriate to compel submission of punishment issues to the jury? | State seeks mandamus to enforce jury punishment. | Trial judge believed unitary trial; discretion to decide. | Mandamus conditionally granted; requires submission to jury within 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojas v. State, 404 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966) (held Article 37.07 applies to pleas of not guilty; Article 26.14 creates jury punishment default for guilty pleas)
- Ring v. State, 450 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (statutory language and earlier authorities support jury determination of punishment in guilty pleas)
- Carroll v. State, 42 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (discussed bifurcated procedure; unitary nature of guilty-plea trials)
- Davis (State v. Davis), 349 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reiterates unitary-trial principle for guilty pleas before jury)