State v. Matthew Akin, 13-15-00076-CR

Appellee Matthew Akin was indicted in Nueces County for Injury to a Child, Elderly Individual, or Disabled Individual, and later a separate indictment followed from a no-arrest pre-indictment process.
A pre-trial habeas corpus/writ of prohibition motion sought relief from double jeopardy under Texas and U.S. constitutional provisions; the trial court granted the motion.
The State filed an appeal without having filed any response to the motion or preserved error at the trial court level.
Appellee argued collateral estoppel/double jeopardy barred prosecution for the same conduct already adjudicated in an administrative proceeding by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
The court treated the issue as preserved by the trial court’s dismissal and addressed whether collateral estoppel/double jeopardy applied to bar the indictment.
The analysis discusses whether administrative and district attorney actions are the same party for collateral estoppel purposes and cites that administrative findings can bar subsequent criminal prosecutions when appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State preserve error at trial court?	Akin	Akin	State failed to preserve error; preserved arguments not raised at trial.
Whether the indictment was properly dismissed on collateral estoppel/double jeopardy grounds	State	Akin	Court properly dismissed on collateral estoppel/double jeopardy grounds.

Bell v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (grounds on appeal must comport with trial objections)
Ex parte Tarver, 725 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (collateral estoppel applies across administrative and criminal actions)
Ex parte Doan, 369 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (collateral estoppel applies with substantial similarities in issues and procedure)
Reynolds v. State, 4 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (administrative hearings can collaterally estop criminal prosecutions in some contexts)
Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (1960) (same offense barred across different government levels)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel defines final judgment cannot be relitigated on ultimate fact)
Dedrick v. State, 623 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (collateral estoppel framework for double jeopardy analysis)
Ex parte Ervin, 991 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (collateral estoppel principles in Texas criminal procedure)
Kopecky, 821 S.W.2d 957 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (principles related to collateral estoppel and double jeopardy)
State v. Rhinehart, 333 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (ordinary rules of procedural default in appellate review)