Stevenson v. State
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1097
Tex. Crim. App.2016Background
- Texas law allows civil commitment of "sexually violent predators" after an adjudication; commitment orders impose supervision and specific conditions (GPS, residence, no contact, treatment) and take effect immediately upon entry.
- In 2011 a jury adjudicated Eric Stevenson a sexually violent predator and a court entered a civil-commitment order imposing conditions and outpatient supervision after release.
- While his appeal of that civil adjudication was pending, Stevenson allegedly violated the commitment in three discrete ways: visiting his girlfriend without approval (count 1), removing/tampering with GPS and leaving the facility (count 2), and failing to make treatment progress (count 3).
- The State indicted Stevenson on three counts under Tex. Health & Safety Code § 841.085; a jury convicted him on all three counts and assessed 17 years and a $5,000 fine on each count.
- On direct appeal, the courts below affirmed the convictions, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that multiple judgments for distinct violations of the same civil-commitment statute violated double-jeopardy and vacated the judgments on counts one and three.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court jurisdiction to prosecute violations while civil adjudication appeal pending | Stevenson: enforcement requires a final civil commitment; pending appeal deprived trial court of jurisdiction | State: §841.081 makes commitment effective immediately; no finality requirement; trial court had jurisdiction | Court: No finality requirement; trial court had jurisdiction under the statute and rule conflicts resolved by statute favoring immediate effect |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions | Stevenson: State failed to prove a final commitment order; evidence insufficient | State: Admitted judgment, requirements, and violations; adjudication and violations proved beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence sufficient to support conviction because statute requires an adjudication (not finality) and order takes immediate effect |
| Double jeopardy—multiple punishments for separate violations of §841.082 | Stevenson: Multiple convictions for different acts under the same statute constitute the same offense; multiple punishments barred | State: Separate acts support separate punishments; lower court relied on precedent treating multiple statements/acts as separate units | Court: Statute defines a circumstances-of-conduct offense; Legislature did not authorize multiple punishments for each separate act here; vacated counts 1 and 3 (only one unit of prosecution) |
| Exclusion of evidence and denial of motion to quash (procedural/failure-to-preserve arguments) | Stevenson: Trial court erred in denying motion to quash and excluding evidence that commitment was not final | State: Issues mirror jurisdictional/finality arguments already rejected; appellant failed to brief/argue properly | Court: Claims dismissed for inadequate briefing and because they rest on rejected finality theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (double-jeopardy elements test)
- Jordan v. State, 36 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (finality requirement for using prior convictions/enhancements)
- Jones v. State, 323 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (unit-of-prosecution analysis for false-statement offense)
- Robinson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (circumstances-of-conduct offenses and gravamen analysis)