Price, Jimmy Don
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 919
Tex. Crim. App.2014Background
- Appellant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and attempted aggravated sexual assault based on acts against his ten-year-old stepdaughter.
- The court of appeals vacated the conviction for criminal attempt, holding the statute disallows dual convictions where the acts overlap in time against the same child.
- The State challenged, arguing the statute’s text does not expressly mention criminal attempts and therefore could permit dual convictions.
- The Court initially found the statute ambiguous as to whether dual convictions are permitted, then conducted an extra-textual analysis of legislative intent.
- The Court concluded that the Legislature intended to permit a single punishment for continuous sexual abuse against one victim within a time frame and disallow dual convictions, including for criminal attempts.
- Concurrence opinions concurred in judgment, with some clarifying points on the Blockburger test and legislative intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute permits dual convictions | Price argues the statute’s text disallows dual convictions for continuous abuse and its enumerated acts. | Price contends the absence of criminal-attempt language implies permission for dual convictions. | Ambiguity exists; dual convictions disallowed after extra-textual analysis. |
| Effect of extra-textual factors on legislative intent | State asserts plain text allows dual convictions; extra-textual factors not necessary. | Price relies on ambiguity; extra-textual factors show intent to prohibit dual convictions. | Extra-textual factors indicate intent to prohibit dual convictions for continuous abuse and related attempts. |
| Double jeopardy implications of dual convictions | State argues two offenses can be punished separately under Blockburger where intended. | Continuous abuse and its predicate acts (including attempts) are the same for double-jeopardy purposes. | Convictions for continuous abuse and an attempt to commit a predicate offense against the same victim/timeframe violate double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 413 S.W.3d 158 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2013) (double-jeopardy concerns; dual convictions may be disallowed)
- Soliz v. State, 353 S.W.3d 850 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (lesser-included offenses and statutory structure relevance)
- Parfait v. State, 120 S.W.3d 348 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (guidance on stacking of offenses; distinguishable facts here)
- Druery v. State, 412 S.W.3d 523 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (extra-textual factors in statutory construction for intent)
- Littrell v. State, 271 S.W.3d 273 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (legislative intent; sameness of offenses for double jeopardy)
- Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.Crim.App.2014) (non-exclusive factors for double-jeopardy analysis)