Samaripas v. State
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1559
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- David Samaripas, Jr., a Latin Kings member, was convicted by a jury of engaging in organized criminal activity (predicate: deadly conduct) and found to have used a deadly weapon.
- During voir dire, defense counsel asked a veniremember what evidence she would expect to hear to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt; the State objected as a commitment question and the trial court sustained the objection.
- Defense counsel reframed questions but did not further press the original question after the court’s ruling.
- At sentencing the State proved two prior felonies for habitual-offender enhancement; one prior was a state-jail felony (evading arrest with a vehicle) that had previously been punished as a second-degree felony under an enhancement.
- Samaripas was sentenced as a habitual offender to 53 years. He appealed arguing (1) improper limitation of voir dire (preservation of error) and (2) unlawful use of a prior state-jail felony for enhancement. The court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error for ruling limiting voir dire | Samaripas: asking the specific question and having the court sustain an objection preserves error; no further objection required | State: Samaripas complied with the ruling, rephrased questions, and failed to show he alerted the court that its ruling limited voir dire scope | Error was preserved under the specialized voir dire rule (Campbell/Nunfio). Case remanded to evaluate abuse of discretion and harm |
| Use of prior state‑jail felony (enhanced to 2nd‑degree punishment) for habitual‑offender enhancement under §12.42(d) | Samaripas: prior offense remained a state‑jail felony and §12.42(e) barred its use for enhancement | State: statutory text allows use because the prior was not punished under §12.35(a) but under an enhanced punishment provision | Court affirmed court of appeals: prior state‑jail conviction, having been punished under §12.42(a) (not under §12.35(a)), could be used to enhance under former §12.42(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (no further questioning required to preserve voir dire error once question is asked and court forbids it)
- Campbell v. State, 685 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (same rule preserving voir dire error where proper question is prohibited)
- Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (trial court has broad discretion over voir dire; abuse occurs only when a proper question on a proper area is prohibited)
- Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (§12.42 increases punishment range, not the offense grade)
- Gonzales v. State, 994 S.W.2d 170 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (referenced regarding preservation principles)