Shelby, John Richard
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1899
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Shelby drove his truck, collided with a marked police car during a traffic stop, injuring Trooper Hoppas (serious fractures) and another person; Shelby fled and was arrested with a BAC of 0.13.
- Indicted and tried for multiple offenses; convicted at a single trial of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a public servant (first-degree felony, 14 yrs) and intoxication assault against the same trooper (second-degree felony as to a peace officer, 5 yrs); sentences concurrent.
- Appellant argued the dual convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because they arose from the same assaultive conduct against one victim.
- The court of appeals affirmed both convictions, applying Blockburger and an Ervin-factor analysis and concluding the Legislature intended separate punishments.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to determine whether dual convictions for aggravated assault on a public servant and intoxication assault based on the same act violate double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shelby) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual convictions for aggravated assault (deadly weapon vs public servant) and intoxication assault based on the same assaultive conduct violate Double Jeopardy | Dual convictions punish the same gravamen (causing bodily injury to the same victim) and thus are barred | Statutes differ in elements, punishment ranges, and appear in different code chapters so Legislature intended separate punishments | Dual convictions violate Double Jeopardy when based on the same assault against one victim; vacate lesser conviction (intoxication assault) and affirm aggravated assault |
| Whether Blockburger controls or additional analysis required | Blockburger shows overlap in focus and imputed liability supports barring duplicative punishment | Blockburger’s elements test shows distinct elements (public-servant knowledge; intoxication/vehicle operation) so proceed to Ervin factors | Blockburger was applied and found the statutes different on their face; but Ervin factors resolve legislative intent in favor of single punishment for the facts here |
| Which Ervin factors are dispositive | Gravamen/unit-of-prosecution (both are result-oriented causing bodily injury; unit = each victim) and imputed recklessness favor same-offense treatment | Emphasized different punishment ranges, separate code placement, and elements as indicating different offenses | Gravamen and unit-of-prosecution control; these factors show Legislature did not intend dual punishments for the same assault on one victim |
| Remedy when dual convictions are same for double jeopardy | Vacate more serious conviction | Retain more serious conviction | Retain the more serious conviction (aggravated assault) and vacate the lesser (intoxication assault) |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes the elements "sameness" test for multiple punishments)
- Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (sets non-exclusive multi-factor test for legislative intent when Blockburger is inconclusive)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (applies cognate-pleadings approach and explains Blockburger is not exclusive)
- Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (explains use of elements vs. unit-of-prosecution analysis and importance of legislative intent)
- Landrian v. State, 268 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defines gravamen of aggravated assault as causing bodily injury for result-oriented offenses)
- Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (rules on remedy: retain conviction with greatest sentence when double jeopardy violation occurs)