in Re the State of Texas Ex. Rel. Stephen B. Tyler
13-15-00316-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 30, 2015Background
- Javier Lopez Jr. was charged with misdemeanor DWI and pleaded guilty before County Court at Law No. 2 in Victoria County. The trial had been set as a jury trial but Lopez (through counsel) sought punishment to be assessed by the court.
- The prosecutor objected and asserted the State would exercise its statutory right to a jury trial; the trial judge nevertheless accepted the guilty plea and scheduled sentencing before the bench.
- The State filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the trial court to empanel a jury; this Court stayed proceedings and considered the mandamus petition.
- The trial court made factual findings about heavy DWI jury dockets, county expense from jury trials, and a local prosecutor policy requiring jury trials in misdemeanor DWI cases; the trial court relied on Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 27.14(a) to permit counsel to waive a jury without State consent.
- The appellate court reviewed the conflict between articles 1.13 (waiver of jury requires consent of State) and 27.14 (misdemeanor guilty pleas may be made by defendant or counsel and may waive a jury), and concluded they can be harmonized to require State consent.
- The court conditionally granted mandamus, directing the trial court to set the case for jury trial and not to enter judgment except upon a jury verdict or if the State consents to a waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a misdemeanor defendant may waive a jury and have the court assess punishment without the State’s consent | State: trial court must empanel a jury when the State withholds written consent to waive jury | Lopez/respondent: art. 27.14 allows counsel to waive jury in misdemeanor pleas without State consent | Held: State wins — art. 1.13 requires State consent; trial court had ministerial duty to empanel a jury (mandamus granted) |
| Whether articles 1.13 and 27.14 irreconcilably conflict (statutory construction) | Lopez: 27.14 is the specific rule and controls, permitting counsel to waive jury in misdemeanors | State: read statutes in pari materia; 1.13 sets specific waiver procedure requiring State consent | Held: Court harmonizes statutes; no conflict — article 1.13 governs waiver procedure and requires State consent |
| Equal protection / rational-basis challenge to prosecutor policy (demanding jury trials in all misdemeanor DWIs) | Lopez: policy lacks rational basis and treats similarly situated defendants differently | State: policy is rationally related to legitimate interest in method of trial and justice; deference to prosecutorial discretion | Held: Rational-basis standard satisfied; no equal protection violation |
| Constitutional claim that State has no "right" to jury trial / defendant’s constitutional rights are violated by forcing jury trial | Lopez/respondent: conditioning waiver on State’s consent infringes defendant’s rights (speedy trial; plea rights) | State: conditioning waiver on consent is constitutional; Singer and Texas precedent allow conditioning waiver on prosecutor and judge consent | Held: No constitutional impediment; precedent upholds conditioning waiver on State consent |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (trial court has ministerial duty to empanel a jury when State withholds consent to waiver)
- State ex rel. Turner v. McDonald, 676 S.W.2d 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (State’s consent required for waiver; trial court may not serve as factfinder absent consent)
- Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1965) (conditioning a defendant’s jury waiver on prosecutor and judge consent is constitutionally permissible)
- Morin v. State, 682 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (when plea accepted but jury cannot be waived, proper procedure is to direct verdict of guilt and submit punishment to jury)
- Arismendez v. State, 595 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (bifurcation prohibition: once guilty plea waives jury, punishment should be assessed by court unless waiver procedures allow otherwise)
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for mandamus: no adequate remedy at law and clear right to relief)