Speights, Billy Wayne
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 754
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Billy Wayne Speights was tried for three offenses against a child under 17: aggravated sexual assault (separate date), indecency with a child by sexual contact, and indecency with a child by exposure.
- Trial evidence described a single bathroom incident in which Speights exposed and masturbated, and then caused the child (S.O.) to touch his penis.
- The jury convicted Speights of both indecency counts and assessed separate sentences (20 years for contact; 10 years for exposure).
- On direct appeal the court of appeals held the exposure conviction subsumed by the contact conviction and entered acquittal on the exposure count as a double jeopardy violation.
- The State Prosecuting Attorney sought review arguing that existing precedent (notably Loving) allows separate punishment when both exposure and contact occur.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, holding the Legislature intended separate units of prosecution for exposure and contact, and the evidence supported convictions on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indecency-by-exposure is necessarily subsumed by indecency-by-contact when exposure and masturbation precede causing the child to touch the defendant’s genitals | SPA: Loving and Benson permit separate punishable units; exposure is not necessarily subsumed | Speights: Double jeopardy barred separate punishment because exposure was part of the same act as contact | Court: Reversed court of appeals — exposure and contact are distinct units; both may be punished when evidence supports each |
| What is the proper units-of-prosecution test under the statute | SPA: Benson/Loving framework governs; ask statutory focus then factual units shown | Speights: Court of appeals erred in treating exposure as necessarily incidental to contact | Court: Adopted Benson two-part test; statutory construction (gravamen) shows separate units; factual record showed both acts occurred |
| Whether double jeopardy can be raised for the first time on appeal where violation is apparent on the record | Speights/court of appeals relied on exception for obvious double jeopardy | State: contesting result based on precedent interpretation | Court: Acknowledged exception but resolved merits in favor of State under Benson/Loving analysis |
| Whether Patterson subsumption theory remains viable for non-penetrative offenses | SPA asked whether Patterson still valid generally | Speights relied on subsumption principle applied by court of appeals | Court: Not addressed as a broad overruling here; clarified Loving controls for indecency (non-penetrative) offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Loving v. State, 401 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (exposure and contact are distinct harms and can be separate units of prosecution)
- Ex parte Benson, 459 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (two-part units-of-prosecution test: statutory gravamen then factual units shown)
- Garfias v. State, 424 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (double jeopardy protections include against multiple punishments)
- Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legislative intent governs what constitutes the same offense for multiple punishments)
- Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (discussed subsumption theory for offenses when greater offense involves penetration)