Rae, Ex Parte Russell Boyd
PD-0734-17
Tex. App.—WacoNov 8, 2017Background
- Russell Boyd Rae pleaded guilty (Aug 3, 2016) to third-degree felony DWI after pleading true to enhancement paragraphs; sentenced to ten years probated.
- State alleged two prior intoxication convictions, including a 1993 Marion County conviction for Operating a Watercraft While Intoxicated (PWOC statute at the time).
- Rae challenged use of the 1993 boating conviction in an Art. 11.072 habeas application, arguing it was not a "final" conviction and thus not usable to jurisdictionally enhance his DWI.
- Trial court denied the habeas application; the Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum opinion (June 13, 2017).
- State seeks to affirm appellate holding: (1) §49.09(b) requires prior "convictions," not "final" convictions, for jurisdictional enhancement; (2) alternatively, Rae’s 1993 boating conviction qualified as a final conviction under the statute in force at that time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rae) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior probated, non‑revoked conviction (1993 boating offense) is a "final" conviction and therefore usable to jurisdictionally enhance DWI under Tex. Penal Code §49.09(b) | The 1993 boating conviction was not "final" (probation was served and not revoked), so it cannot be used to enhance Rae’s DWI. | §49.09(b) requires only prior "convictions," not "final" convictions; even if "final" required, the 1993 statute then in effect treated post‑1984 convictions as final. | Court of Appeals: §49.09(b) does not require prior convictions to be "final"; alternatively, the 1993 boating conviction qualifies as final under then‑applicable law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. State, 864 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (standards for preserving and presenting appellate issues)
- Gibson v. State, 995 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (distinguishing jurisdictional enhancement under §49.09 from punishment enhancement; §49.09 does not require final convictions)
- Coit v. State, 808 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (statutory interpretation: courts give effect to the plain, unambiguous language of a statute)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (focus on statutory text to discern legislative intent)
- Ex parte Murchison, 560 S.W.2d 654 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (non‑revoked probated convictions are not "final" for punishment‑enhancement purposes)
- Rizo v. State, 963 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1997) (construing former article regarding finality of convictions occurring on/after Jan 1, 1984)