State v. Alexander Elliot Dinur
383 S.W.3d 695
Tex. App.2012Background
- The State appeals a trial court dismissal of DWI charges against Alexander Dinur.
- Dinur was charged October 11, 2009, and eligible for HCDAO’s pretrial DIVERT program, which postpones prosecution and requires guilty plea and punishment agreement pending completion.
- DIVERT requires judicial approval and results in dismissal at the reset hearing upon success; violation leads to guilty adjudication.
- Judge Harmon repeatedly stated DIVERT violates statutes and refused to approve any DIVERT entry for eligible first-time DWI offenders.
- The trial court dismissed on equal protection grounds, citing a pilot program and alleged selective enforcement.
- This Court reverses and remands, finding no constitutional, statutory, or common-law basis for dismissal and that the record does not prove equal-protection violations
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal violated equal protection | Dinur alleged selective prosecution | State argues no selective prosecution; DIVERT offered to Dinur | No equal-protection violation; dismissal improper |
| Whether random assignment to a specific court violated equal protection | Dinur treated differently due to assignment | Assignment to misdemeanor courts is random and neutral | No equal-protection violation; random assignment neutral |
| Whether the pilot/diversion program constituted unequal treatment | Pilot program shows favoritism | No similarly situated defendants to compare; no violation | No equal-protection violation; could not show similarly situated individuals |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective-prosecution standard; prosecutorial discretion context)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (prosecution decisions not to prosecute; equal-protection concerns)
- Mungia v. State, 119 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (trial court may dismiss to remedy constitutional taint in limited cases)
- Terrazas v. State, 962 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (limitations on dismissal without State consent; constitutional issues context)
- Plambeck v. State, 182 S.W.3d 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court lacks inherent authority to dismiss without prosecutor consent, except defined grounds)
- Seidel v. State, 39 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (procedural limits on dismissal without consent)