Miles, Leonard
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1665
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Miles III was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of codeine; the firearm conviction appeal was dismissed as improvidently granted; the codeine appeal questioned sufficiency of evidence under Health and Safety Code 481.115 (Penalty Group 1); Fifth Court of Appeals held evidence supported a Penalty Group 4 conviction; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review on what codeine concentration supports a first-degree felony conviction; the Court held Miles was tried for Penalty Group 1, but the evidence did not prove that offense and acquittal was proper; the indictment and jury charge failed to distinguish Penalty Groups 1, 3, or 4, and crucial qualitative elements of Penalty Group 4 were not proven; the judgment and punishment range inconsistencies reflected the misidentification of the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves Penalty Group 1 codeine possession | Miles argues evidence insufficient for Penalty Group 1 | State contends evidence supports a codeine offense | Acquittal affirmed; evidence insufficient for Penalty Group 1 |
| Whether indictment/charge properly identified the offense | Miles contends indictment failed to specify penalty group | State maintains charge encompassed the relevant offense | Indictment/charge failed to clearly authorize Penalty Group 1; conviction invalid for lack of proper offense |
| Whether the State was required to prove promethazine’s proportion for Penalty Group 4 | Miles argues promethazine proportion was insufficient or not required | State contends qualitative element is required to prove Penalty Group 4 | Insufficient evidence of promethazine’s proportion to confer medicinal qualities; no Penalty Group 4 proof |
| Whether the hypothetically correct jury charge aligned with the actual offense | Miles asserts charge did not describe the actual offense tried | State asserts record supports some Penalty Group interpretation | Court engaged in direct sufficiency review and acquitted for lack of proper offense |
| Whether the punishment range reflected the correct offense | Miles argues punishment range misaligned with charged offense | State argues standard ranges applied to pleaded offense | Punishment range aligned with Penalty Group 1 due to being the offense proved; acquittal maintained |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 275 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (proportion of nonnarcotic ingredient must confer medicinal qualities for Penalty Group 4)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (sufficiency review must match hypothetically correct offense as charged)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review standard: rational finder could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Kirkpatrick v. State, 279 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (indictment caption not controlling; focus is on offense actually charged)
- Duron v. State, 956 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (inspection of indictment sufficiency; proper charging standards)