Background

• Defendant Zachary Dintelman was indicted for DWI (third offense) based on two prior Missouri intoxication-related convictions, one from May 9, 2007 (the “May Case”) and another from November 6, 2007.
• The State introduced a Missouri docket sheet and a Probation Order & Certificate showing Dintelman pled guilty in the May Case, received a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), and was placed on two years’ probation.
• Dintelman moved to quash the indictment, arguing one or more prior convictions were void for lack of counsel and that an SIS did not constitute a “conviction” for enhancement.
• The trial court denied the counsel-related claim, requested briefing on whether an SIS qualifies as a conviction, then concluded Missouri law treated an SIS as a conviction but Texas law did not, and quashed the indictment.
• The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the SIS in the May Case counted as a “conviction” under Texas Penal Code § 49.09(b)(2).

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (motion to quash charging instrument reviewed de novo)
• McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (a “conviction” involves an adjudication of guilt)
• Ex parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (discussion that “conviction” can include judgment of guilt and assessment of punishment)
• Yale v. City of Independence, 846 S.W.2d 193 (Mo. 1993) (SIS is not a final judgment under Missouri law; records may be sealed if probation completed)
• Gibson v. State, 995 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (distinguishing § 49.09 enhancement of offense from § 12.42 punishment enhancement)