State v. Tiphanie Raquel Tippin
13-16-00144-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Tippin was indicted for possession of marijuana (state jail felony) and, at trial on March 7, 2016, pled guilty and requested deferred adjudication community supervision.
- A jury was empaneled and sworn for the punishment phase; after a lunch recess Tippin reaffirmed her guilty plea and waiver of a jury trial for guilt.
- The jury was instructed to find guilt and assess punishment; it found Tippin guilty and assessed a suspended one-year sentence and a $5,000 fine.
- After discharging the jury, the trial court accepted Tippin’s guilty plea, announced deferred adjudication with conditions, and orally stated it was setting aside the jury verdict; a written judgment noted the court “set asides the jury verdict.”
- The State appealed the court’s orders setting aside the jury verdict and imposing deferred adjudication; Tippin cross‑appealed the denial of her pretrial motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Tippin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over State's appeal from order setting aside jury verdict | The order is appealable as a modification/new trial equivalent or as an illegal sentence | The appeal actually challenges process, not an appealable sentence | Court has jurisdiction because the order was the functional equivalent of granting a new trial under art. 44.01(a)(3) |
| Whether trial court could set aside jury verdict sua sponte and impose deferred adjudication | Trial court erred by setting aside verdict and imposing deferred adjudication without a defendant’s motion for new trial | The deferred adjudication placement was valid | Court held the sua sponte setting aside was void (trial court may not grant new trial on its own motion); subsequent deferred adjudication was a nullity |
| Tippin's cross-appeal of suppression denial | N/A (Tippin sought review) | The court orally rescinded sentence, so no final appealable sentence was pronounced | Court dismissed Tippin’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no appealable oral pronouncement of sentence remained |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 349 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (courts may treat an order by label as the functional equivalent of a new trial)
- State v. Evans, 843 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (treatment of orders equivalent to new trial)
- State v. Savage, 933 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (appealability when an order functions as a new trial)
- Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (oral pronouncement of sentence is the appealable event)
- Zaragosa v. State, 588 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (second trial/sentence after sua sponte new trial is a nullity)
- Perkins v. Court of Appeals for Third Supreme Judicial Dist. of Tex., at Austin, 738 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (granting new trial on court’s own motion is void)
- Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (no jurisdiction absent oral pronouncement of sentence)
- State v. Zalman, 400 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (motion for new trial is a defendant’s motion; court may not grant new trial sua sponte)
Disposition: Reversed and remanded: the court’s orders setting aside the jury verdict and placing Tippin on deferred adjudication are void; the jury verdict is reinstated. Tippin’s appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (without prejudice to appeal after an oral pronouncement of sentence).