Maldonado, Anthony L.
461 S.W.3d 144
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (penetration by penis and finger) and indecency with a child (contact) involving two victims, M.R. and S.R.; sentence: life.
- Trial evidence: M.R. alleged repeated abuse from ages 8–13 (3–5×/week); S.R. testified to daily touching; the indictment grouped some counts as occurring "on or about" the same date but alleged many separate dates overall.
- Court of Appeals vacated two indecency-with-a-child convictions as subsumed by aggravated sexual-assault convictions, relying on Patterson (holding contact/exposure may be subsumed when part of the same single act).
- State sought review, arguing Patterson’s subsumption rule should not bar convictions where the evidence shows multiple, separate incidents of contact and penetration across time.
- This Court granted review to decide (1) whether Patterson remains good law, and (2) whether a contact count is subsumed by a penetration count when evidence shows multiple incidents that could support each count.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Appellant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patterson's subsumption theory remains valid | Patterson is distinguishable; legislature intended separate punishments for separate proscribed acts | Patterson controls when contact/exposure are not separate acts | Patterson remains valid but fact-specific; not overruled |
| Whether contact is subsumed by penetration when multiple incidents exist | Separate acts across time can support separate convictions; State not bound to indicted date | If State alleged same date for contact and penetration, defendant lacked notice of separate acts | Where evidence shows multiple distinct incidents, contact not subsumed by penetration; convictions permissible |
| Proper double-jeopardy test (elements vs. units) | Units (separate acts) determine separateness despite elemental overlap | Apply Blockburger/elements and vacate lesser-included offenses when same act | Elements may coincide, but units analysis controls; separate units = no double jeopardy |
| Whether indecency-by-contact can be a lesser-included or legally subsumed offense | Lesser-included only if based on same act; separate-day offenses not lesser-included | Indecency-by-contact here was lesser-included of same act | Offenses here not legally subsumed; separate-day contact is distinct offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (establishes subsumption where exposure/contact are not separate from penetration)
- Aekins v. State, 447 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (contact and penetration held part of single act; convictions barred if based on same continuous act)
- Loving v. State, 401 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (separate exposure and contact can be distinct punishable acts)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy; distinct analysis from units inquiry)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977) (distinguishes elements analysis from units/continuing-impulse analysis)