Ruben Ortiz Haro v. the State of Texas, 03-20-00128-CR

Tom Green County received a cybertip; warrants executed at Haro’s home and devices uncovered suspected child‑pornography images. Haro showed officers three images on his iPad.
A grand jury indicted Haro on two counts that track the Penal Code: Count One—promotion of child pornography (alleged "promoting, by circulating"); Count Two—possession of child pornography (both counts identically describe the material).
Haro pleaded guilty and open to the court on both counts; the trial court found him guilty and imposed concurrent sentences (15 years for promotion; 10 years for possession).
Haro did not raise a double‑jeopardy objection at trial but appealed, arguing the possession conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because promotion (by circulating) necessarily includes possession.
The court considered only the pleadings (not trial evidence) under the Blockburger/same‑elements framework and concluded promoting by circulating necessarily alleges possession; because the Legislature did not clearly authorize multiple punishments here, the possession conviction was vacated and the promotion conviction affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether promotion (by circulating) and possession of the same unspecified child‑pornography material are the "same offense" for double‑jeopardy purposes	Haro: promoting by circulating cannot occur without possessing the material; the indictment's general, non‑itemized allegations mean both counts rest on the same facts	State: evidence at trial showed different images/acts; statutory elements differ so separate convictions proper	Court: As pleaded (promotion alleged as "circulate"), circulation necessarily includes possession; under Blockburger and absent clear legislative intent to allow cumulative punishment, the offenses are the same—vacated possession, affirmed promotion
Whether the double‑jeopardy claim is preserved despite no trial objection	Haro: claim is apparent on the face of the record and may be raised on appeal	State: relied on trial evidence to distinguish offenses (not the pleadings)	Court: Claim may be raised on appeal because resolution required only the record/pleadings and enforcing procedural default would serve no legitimate interest

Philmon v. State, 609 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (Texas applies Blockburger same‑elements test informed only by pleadings)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑elements test for determining whether offenses are the same)
Ex parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (double‑jeopardy framework and lesser‑included analysis)
Ex parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (factor in descriptive averments/manners and means when assessing lesser‑included offenses)
Aekins v. State, 447 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (possession and possession‑with‑intent distinctions; analysis of overlapping conduct)
Maldonado v. State, 461 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (when one act is factually subsumed in another)
Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (non‑exclusive factors to infer legislative intent on multiple punishments)
Price v. State, 434 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (legislative intent to allow multiple punishments must be clearly expressed)