Reinke v. State
348 S.W.3d 373
Tex. App.2011Background
- Reinke has been incarcerated in a State mental-health facility since September 23, 1990 after being found incompetent to stand trial for attempted murder with an enhancement paragraph.
- Indictment alleged second-degree felony attempted murder with prior felonies that could elevate punishment to first-degree—five to ninety-nine years or life if true.
- Article 46B.0095(a) limits commitment to a maximum term provided by law for the offense, not including potential enhancements.
- By 2010, Reinke had been committed for twenty years, raising the question whether that exceeded the maximum term for the indicted offense.
- The district court denied habeas relief; Reinke sought relief under article 46B.0095(c) via habeas corpus alleging unlawful commitment.
- The issue presented is whether the maximum term is the unenhanced offense term or the enhanced potential total term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 46B.0095(a) uses enhanced terms in calculating maximum term | Reinke argues maximum term equals twenty years for the unenhanced offense. | State argues maximum term includes enhancements, up to ninety-nine years or life. | Maximum term is the offense term, excluding enhancements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (enhancements increase punishment, not offense level)
- Williams v. State, 5 S.W.2d 514 (Tex.Crim.App.1928) (prior convictions affect punishment, not the offense itself)
- Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (rule about fixed punishment after true findings of enhancement)
- State v. Webb, 12 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (enhancements affect punishment, not offense level)