State of Texas v. Richardson, Stewart Le
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1600
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- State charged Richardson with intoxication assault with enhancement paragraphs based on Iowa aggravated misdemeanors (OUI causing serious injury).
- Enhancement relied on three Iowa convictions to classify as felonies for sentencing enhancement under Texas law.
- Trial court quashed enhancement as ineligible for enhancement, ordering no reference to Iowa offenses as felonies.
- State sought to appeal under Texas Code Crim. Proc. Art. 44.01(a)(1) for dismissal of a portion of the indictment; court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide whether Art. 44.01(a)(1) authorizes the State’s appeal from a pretrial order that eliminates enhancement paragraphs.
- Court holds that Art. 44.01(a)(1) authorizes the State’s appeal when the order “dismisses” or effectively terminates the prosecution as to the challenged portion of the indictment and remands for merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Art. 44.01(a)(1) permits the State’s appeal here | State argues plain text for broad jurisdiction over dismissal of indictment portions | Richardson contends no appeal because enhancement paragraphs are not a ‘portion of the indictment’ under the statute | Yes; statute permits the State’s appeal over dismissed or effectively terminated portions of the indictment |
| Plain-language interpretation of ‘indictment’ and ‘enhancement paragraphs’ | State contends enhancement paragraphs are a portion of the indictment | Richardson argues distinctions between primary vs. ancillary pleadings are controlling | Statute should be liberally construed; enhancement paragraphs are within ‘portion of an indictment’ |
| Moreno and related precedents support jurisdiction | Moreno authorizes appeals from orders that effectively terminate prosecution | Richardson relies on Lykos and Morgan to limit applicability | Moreno supports jurisdiction; pretrial rulings that effectively terminate prosecution fall within Art. 44.01(a)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (distinctions on pleading discussability do not foreclose appeal under Art. 44.01(a)(1))
- Moreno v. State, 807 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (broadly influenced interpretation of ‘dismiss’ and returns to federal analogy)
- Lykos v. State ex rel., 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (pretrial ruling not affecting face of indictment not appealable under Art. 44.01(a)(1))
- Morgan v. State, 160 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (pretrial ruling not affecting face of the information not appealable under Art. 44.01(a)(1))