Jared Tyrell Stinecipher v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7922
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Jared Tyrell Stinecipher pleaded guilty to (1) accident involving personal injury or death (transport code) and (2) criminally negligent homicide (Penal Code); deadly-weapon (motor vehicle) allegations were pleaded true in both indictments.
- Sentencing hearing: trial court found guilt and true findings and assessed concurrent 10-year prison terms for each offense; no plea bargain on punishment.
- Appellant challenged on appeal: (1) double jeopardy (multiple punishments), (2) voluntariness of guilty plea to criminally negligent homicide due to incorrect punishment admonishment, and (3) assessment of attorney’s fees/court costs despite indigency.
- Trial court initially admonished the wrong punishment range for criminally negligent homicide (state jail felony 6 months–2 years); at sentencing the court and prosecutor corrected that a deadly-weapon finding elevated punishment to third-degree felony (2–10 years), and the court gave Appellant the option to withdraw his plea; Appellant elected to proceed.
- Record shows Appellant was previously adjudicated indigent and appointed counsel; the judgment assessed $602 in court costs including $300 attorney’s fees which Appellant contested on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Stinecipher's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy: whether convictions for accident involving injury/death and criminally negligent homicide constitute multiple punishments for same offense | Offenses have different elements and focus; no facial double jeopardy violation | Prosecution and punishment on both indictments punish same conduct/death; violates double jeopardy | Overruled: Blockburger, Ervin factors, and units-of-prosecution show legislature intended separate punishments; no facial double jeopardy violation |
| Voluntariness of plea due to incorrect admonishment (range) for criminally negligent homicide | Court corrected error at sentencing, informed D, offered withdrawal, D voluntarily reaffirmed plea | Initial admonishment was incorrect and rendered plea involuntary | Overruled: The court substantially complied by correcting admonishment, offering withdrawal, and D knowingly chose to proceed |
| Whether the trial court’s corrective admonishment cured the defect and preserved plea | Corrective admonishment and colloquy cured any defect | Incorrect initial admonishment undermined plea | Held cured: defendant understood consequences and was not harmed |
| Attorney’s fees/court costs: whether assessment of $300 attorney’s fees was supported given indigency | State concedes fees unsupported where no record showing material change in finances | Fees improper because D remained indigent and no finding of changed circumstances | Sustained: delete $300 in fees; modify costs from $602 to $302; affirm as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (elements/Ervin/unit-of-prosecution analysis for multiple punishments)
- Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (preservation rule for double jeopardy; when claim may be raised on appeal)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test whether offenses each require proof of an element the other does not)
- Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (factors for legislative intent in multiple-punishments context)
- Ex parte Gibauitch, 688 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (substantial compliance with admonishment requirement; burden to show harm)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (assessment of court costs; nonpunitive nature and review standard)