Mireles, Nicholas Jared
PD-1540-14
Tex. App.Mar 10, 2015Background
- Appellant Mireles pleaded guilty at a consolidated trial to intoxication manslaughter (4 years prison) and intoxication assault (7 years probated/community supervision). The trial court ordered the 7‑year probation to run consecutively to the 4‑year prison term.
- Mireles appealed the stacking (cumulation) order; the court of appeals affirmed, prompting this petition for discretionary review.
- Central statutory provisions: Tex. Penal Code § 3.03 (special stacking rules for offenses from the same criminal episode tried in a single action) and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.08 (general stacking authority allowing sentences “imposed or suspended” to run consecutively).
- Core legal question: whether § 3.03’s reference to “sentences” permits a trial court to order a suspended/probated sentence (community supervision) to run consecutively to an imposed prison sentence when both convictions arise from the same criminal episode and were tried together.
- Appellant argues prior Texas CCA precedent treats community supervision (a suspension) as not being part of the sentence and therefore outside the scope of § 3.03; the State and the court of appeals read § 3.03 to permit stacking probation under its exception for intoxication offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tex. Penal Code § 3.03 permits stacking a suspended/probated sentence onto a prison term when convictions arise from the same criminal episode tried together | Mireles: "sentence" in § 3.03 excludes suspended sentences/community supervision; § 3.03 therefore does not authorize stacking probation on top of prison | State: read § 3.03’s “sentence” to include community supervision (in pari materia with art. 42.08); thus § 3.03(b) exception authorizes stacking for intoxication offenses | Court of appeals: affirmed trial court — accepted State’s view that § 3.03 allows stacking probation with prison in this context |
| Whether § 3.03 displaces Article 42.08 (i.e., § 3.03 is a limiting special statute when convictions are in a single action) | Mireles: § 3.03 governs consolidated trials and limits Article 42.08; omission of “imposed or suspended” from § 3.03 shows legislature did not intend suspended sentences to be included | State/court of appeals: treat statutes in pari materia and read § 3.03’s “sentence” consistently with art. 42.08, so the exception applies to probation | Court of appeals: treated § 3.03 as controlling but read its term “sentence” to encompass community supervision |
| Whether precedent (Lechuga, Wiltz, Speth, Kesaria, LaPorte, Pettigrew, Green) requires that community supervision not be treated as part of a sentence for stacking purposes | Mireles: CCA holdings repeatedly state community supervision/probation is an arrangement in lieu of sentence and not part of sentence; those cases preclude treating suspended sentences as cumulatible under § 3.03 | State: practical/interpretive arguments and historical usage support reading § 3.03 to cover community supervision | Court of appeals: acknowledged precedents but concluded both sides’ readings lead to affirmance; did not follow Mireles’ narrow reading |
| Remedy for improper cumulation order | Mireles: stacking a suspended term onto a prison term under § 3.03 is unauthorized and produces a void sentence; relief should strike the cumulation or remand | State: defends the stacking as within discretion | Court of appeals: rejected challenge and affirmed stacking order |
Key Cases Cited
- Lechuga v. State, 532 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (established that probation/suspension is not a sentence)
- Wiltz v. State, 863 S.W.2d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (probation suspends imposition of sentence; not equivalent to straight confinement for stacking comparison)
- Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (community supervision is an arrangement in lieu of sentence, not part of it)
- Kesaria v. State, 189 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reiterated that community supervision is not part of sentence; § 3.03 applies to cumulation of sentences, not probation conditions)
- LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (held § 3.03 limits Article 42.08 for convictions from same criminal episode tried in single action)
- Green v. State, 706 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (narrow construction of Article 42.08 pre‑amendment: punishment did not include community supervision)
- Pettigrew v. State, 48 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (recognized 42.08 amendment broadened stacking to include suspended sentences/community supervision under that statute)