416 S.W.3d 90
Tex. App.2013Background
- Richard Darren Goodwin was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator in 2005 and subject to treatment/supervision requirements under Tex. Health & Safety Code §841.082.
- He was prosecuted under §841.085 for violating civil-commitment requirements; indictment alleged prosecution in Montgomery County and introduced the original commitment judgment.
- At relevant times (Nov–Dec 2010) Goodwin was housed in a CSOT-contracted halfway house after a transfer that he later contested as lacking required notice/hearing.
- While searching Goodwin’s packed belongings (after he filed a grievance about missing property), facility staff found and seized items prohibited by his treatment plan; those items were used in the prosecution.
- Goodwin argued (1) venue was improper because violations occurred outside Montgomery County, (2) evidence was insufficient, (3) the search/seizure was unlawful, (4) indictment should be dismissed due to invalid change of residency without hearing, and (5) motion in limine improperly foreclosed evidence about statutory suspension of duties during confinement.
- The jury convicted Goodwin; the court of appeals affirmed, rejecting each of his appellate issues.
Issues
| Issue | Goodwin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue | Indictment alleged offense in Montgomery County but proof showed violations occurred in Travis County; venue not established | Venue statute for §841.085 allows prosecution in Montgomery County if offense under that section is charged; venue proven by commitment judgment | Affirmed — venue proper under art. 13.315; State need not prove the location of the acts when prosecuting in Montgomery County |
| Sufficiency of Evidence | Violations were consequence of amended residency order; evidence insufficient to prove independent violation of commitment requirements | Commitment and treatment/supervision duties remained in effect regardless of residence; acts alleged were proved | Affirmed — evidence sufficient under Jackson standard to prove violation of §841.085 |
| Motion to Suppress (search/seizure) | Search of belongings was warrantless and unlawful; also attacked legality of his housing at the halfway house | Goodwin’s expectation of privacy was diminished as a civilly committed person and probationer; institutional need justified search; any illegality attenuated or harmless | Affirmed — search reasonable given diminished privacy and institutional interests; admission, if erroneous, was harmless due to other unchallenged violations |
| Motion to Dismiss / Residency Change | October 21, 2010 order transferring residence was invalid for lack of notice/hearing; indictment should be dismissed | Goodwin did not challenge the transfer in the civil-commitment case; dismissal is an extraordinary remedy and not warranted; residency change didn’t negate duties alleged | Affirmed — dismissal improper; collateral attack inappropriate and no showing that dismissal was proper remedy |
| Motion in Limine re: §841.150 suspension | Trial court barred mention that duties are suspended during confinement, preventing a defense about suspension | Reading §841.150 to suspend duties while in CSOT residential facility would render commitment meaningless; commitment duties begin on release to facility | Affirmed — motion in limine proper; suspension statute does not apply to residence in CSOT facility and would defeat commitment scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Skillern v. State, 890 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994) (distinguishing jurisdiction and venue)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson sufficiency is sole standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Hanks v. State, 137 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (distinguishing sufficiency and legality of seizures)
- Serna v. Goodno, 567 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2009) (diminished privacy expectation for civilly committed sex offenders)
- U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (probation search condition reduces expectation of privacy)
- Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (institutional searches of detainees/custodial populations are reasonable)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (detainees have diminished privacy in custodial settings)
- Goodwin v. State, 376 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (discussing attenuation of taint from alleged illegal housing/transfer)
- Tollefson v. State, 352 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (constitutional error harmless where verdict unaffected)
- Mungia, 119 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court lacks general authority to dismiss criminal cases without prosecutor consent)
- Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial court findings on suppression motions)