Stevenson, Eric Dwayne, PD-0122-15

Background

Eric Dwayne Stevenson was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator on Sept. 14, 2011, with specific outpatient supervision and treatment conditions (e.g., 24/7 GPS/WMTD, home confinement except with permission, no contact with family/friends without approval, active participation in treatment).
On Feb. 26, 2012, Stevenson removed his tracking device, left the transitional living center without permission, was found at his girlfriend’s apartment (contact not approved), and was later discharged for lack of progress/poor cooperation in treatment.
He was indicted on three counts for violating civil-commitment requirements; a jury convicted him on all counts, found a repeat-offender notice true, and sentenced him to 17 years and a $5,000 fine on each count.
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions; Stevenson petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on five issues (double jeopardy; trial court jurisdiction; denial of motion to quash indictment; denial of directed verdict; exclusion of evidence about pending appeal of commitment).
The State’s merits brief argues: (1) each separate violation of a commitment requirement is an allowable unit of prosecution; (2) civil commitment orders take immediate effect (so pending appeal does not negate prosecution or jurisdiction); (3) the appellate status of the commitment order is irrelevant to indictment validity, directed verdict, and jury fact-finding on guilt; and (4) finality is a legal question for the court, not a jury issue.

Issues

Issue	Stevenson’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held / Disposition by Court of Appeals (and State’s Position)
Double jeopardy: Are the three convictions the same offense?	Multiple convictions punish the same offense because they arose from one overall episode of noncompliance.	Each distinct violation of a civil-commitment requirement is a separate unit of prosecution; plurality of acts supports separate punishments.	Court of Appeals affirmed convictions; State urges denial of double‑jeopardy relief.
Jurisdiction: Did pending appeal of the commitment order deprive trial court of jurisdiction?	Pending appeal rendered the commitment nonfinal and thus prosecution premature / jurisdiction improper.	Commitment orders are effective immediately by statute; pending appeal does not divest jurisdiction to prosecute violations.	Court of Appeals affirmed; State urges denial.
Motion to quash indictment: Should indictment be quashed because the commitment was on appeal?	Indictment defective because underlying commitment was not final.	Indictment facially alleged required facts; appellate pendency is a defensive theory, not a basis to quash.	Court of Appeals affirmed denial of motion to quash; State urges denial.
Directed verdict: Must the State prove the commitment was final?	Directed verdict proper because commitment was not final while on appeal.	Statute does not require proof of finality; State must only prove defendant had been adjudicated and committed when he violated requirements.	Court of Appeals affirmed denial of directed verdict; State urges denial.
Exclusion of evidence: Was exclusion of evidence that commitment was on appeal improper?	Evidence of pending appeal was relevant to show order was not final and to negate elements.	Finality is a legal question for the court; appellate status is irrelevant to jury fact-finding and thus properly excluded as irrelevant.	Court of Appeals affirmed exclusion; State urges denial.

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (protection against multiple punishments for same offense)
Jones v. State, 323 S.W.3d 885 (gravamen/units‑of‑prosecution analysis; use of "a/any" as interpretive tool)
Young v. State, 341 S.W.3d 417 (each failure to comply with registration duties can be separate offense)
Ex parte Benson, 459 S.W.3d 67 (units‑of‑prosecution framework)
Bays v. State, 396 S.W.3d 580 (statutory interpretation is question of law)
Crabtree v. State, 389 S.W.3d 820 (questions of law are for the court, not jury)
In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637 (SVP commitment proceedings are civil in nature)
Long v. Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 426 S.W.3d 73 (finality in civil judgments is context‑dependent)
Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (courts must give effect to clear statutory language)