Nixon, Reginald
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 44
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Reginald Nixon pled guilty to burglary of a habitation and evading arrest; jury assessed punishment for each offense at the punishment phase.
- During initial punishment deliberations the jury asked whether sentences would run concurrently or consecutively; the judge told them only to continue deliberating.
- The jury returned verdicts of 7 years (burglary) and 9 years (evading) and wrote an asterisked handwritten note stating the sentences were to be served consecutively (i.e., totaling 16 years).
- The trial judge did not receive those verdicts, conferred with counsel, rejected the handwritten cumulation, instructed the jury that sentences must run concurrently as a matter of law, and sent them back to deliberate.
- The jury returned new verdicts assessing 16 years for each offense; Nixon was sentenced accordingly and appealed, arguing the judge should have accepted and reformed the original verdicts under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.10(b).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held Article 37.10(b) requires a trial court to accept and reform a verdict that contains both authorized and unauthorized punishment and therefore reformed the judgments to reflect the original 7- and 9-year verdicts to be served concurrently.
Issues
| Issue | Nixon's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 37.10(b) or 37.10(a) governs a verdict that assesses authorized terms but attempts unauthorized cumulation | 37.10(b) applies; the handwritten cumulation is unauthorized punishment and the judge had to accept and reform the verdict (omit cumulation) | Cumulation is not "punishment" under art. 37.10(b); judge had discretion to reject the verdict and send jury back under art. 37.10(a) and Muniz | 37.10(b) controls: where a verdict assesses both authorized and unauthorized punishment the court shall reform the verdict to show only punishment authorized by law; judge erred by sending jury back and must accept/reform the original verdicts |
| Whether a jury’s attempt to stack sentences constitutes "punishment" under art. 37.10(b) | The jury’s note attempting cumulation is an unauthorized punitive assessment and thus "punishment" under (b) | Cumulation is an administrative allocation of already-assessed punishments, not an assessment of additional punishment | The Court held the attempted cumulation served a punitive purpose and is therefore unauthorized "punishment" under (b) that must be omitted by the court |
| Effect of Muniz and prior informal-verdict cases on trials after enactment of 37.10(b) | Muniz is distinguishable because 37.10(b) did not exist when Muniz was decided and Muniz addressed incomplete/informal verdicts | Muniz permits the trial judge to return a jury to deliberate where verdicts do not comply with charge or applicable law | Muniz remains applicable to incomplete/informal verdicts, but does not control when a complete verdict contains both authorized and unauthorized punishment after enactment of 37.10(b) |
| Remedy when trial judge fails to reform under 37.10(b) | Court of Appeals/Trial Court should reform or remand | Trial court’s returning jury and subsequent verdicts were permissible | Appellate court must reform the judgment if trial court failed to reform under (b); this Court reformed Nixon’s judgments to reflect original verdicts (7 and 9 years, concurrent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Muniz v. State, 573 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (trial judge may send jury back when verdict is incomplete or informal)
- Bogany v. State, 661 S.W.2d 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (prior rule that unauthorized punishment rendered verdict void)
- Ex parte Johnson, 697 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (applying art. 37.10(b) to omit an unauthorized fine)
- Reese v. State, 773 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (trial judge must reject incomplete or insufficient verdicts and may send jury back)
- Woodard v. State, 898 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1995) (trial court required to omit unauthorized stipulation in punishment verdict under art. 37.10(b))
- Barrow v. State, 207 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussion of trial judge’s discretionary authority to cumulate punishments)