Martin v. State

See case details

Audry Q. MARTIN, Aрpellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 859-82.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

May 11, 1983.

652 S.W.2d 777

CLINTON, Judge.

see

Howeth v. State, 645 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

By our holding, we do not mean to imply or leave the inference that a ticket seller or а cashier of a theatre could not ever be guilty of committing an offense under the obscenity statute, either individually or as a party to the offense. We are simply holding that under the facts of this cause no rational trier of facts could have found that appellant cоmmitted the offense of commercial exhibition of obscenity beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the extent that the Court of Appeаls ordered appellant‘s conviction reversed for any reason other than what we have given, its decision is overruled. The judgment of the Court of Appeals,

647 S.W.2d 686, reversing appellant‘s conviction, is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court to enter a judgment of аcquittal.

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978);

Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978).

ONION, P.J., and CLINTON, J., concur in the result.

William F. Carter, Madisonville, for appellant.

Felipe Reyna, Dist. Atty. and J. Patrick Murphy, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waco, Robert Huttash, State‘s Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State‘s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON STATE‘S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CLINTON, Judge.

In its opinion the Waco Court оf Appeals noted the initial assertion by appellant was that “his plea of guilty was not voluntarily and knowingly made because it was based upon the belief and understanding that he would have the right to appeal” on its merits the denial by the trial court of his motion to dismiss under the Texas Speedy Trial Act. Article 32A.02, § 1(1). The court found that “the plea of guilty was made by appellant and accepted by the Court with the understanding of both, and with the court‘s permission, that appellant could appeal the order overruling his ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍pre-trial motion made under the Speedy Trial Act,”¹ applied the opinion of this Court in

Wooten v. State, 612 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) to “facts materially identical,” acknowledged that the State “confesses error in our case under the ruling in Wooten” and sustained the first ground of error.

Martin v. State, 626 S.W.2d 928 (Tex.App.-Waco 1982).

We granted the State‘s petition for disсretionary review, presented by the State Prosecuting Attorney, primarily because at the time a number of other cases raising issues seеmingly of like vein were pending before the Court.² Without distinguishing them by pretrial issue raised by appellant and ruled by the trial court before accеpting what turned out to be considered a “conditional plea,” the ultimate position of the State Prosecuting Attorney is that

Wooten, supra,

Mooney v. State, 615 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) and all other progeny of

Chavarria v. State, 425 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1968) and

Killebrew v. State, 464 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) should be ovеrruled so that taking of such “conditional pleas” may be then approved by this Court, to the end that an appellant is not barred “from obtaining the plenary review he bargained for.”

However, certainly in motions to suppress evidence, to accomplish that which the State Prosecuting Attorney seeks the Court would necessarily have to reject that solid line of authorities following

Stiggers v. State, 506 S.W.2d 609 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), to the effect that if the record does not reflect that any evidence obtained as a result of the challenged search was introduced in evidence “no error is shown or presented for review,” or, stated another way, if the guilty plea is supported by evidence “independently of the matter contested in the pre-trial motion, then any erroneous ruling on that motion does not vitiate the conviction,”

Ferguson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). See

Prochaska v. State, 587 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) for our treatment of consеquences that flow respectively from several different ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍plea situations created in the trial court. Compare also Dean Mooney with Rosemary Mooney, codefendants in

Mooney v. State, supra.

In one of the causes still pending disposition, see note 2, ante, recognizing the problem we have just alluded to, the affected district attorney would solve it by having this Court “carve an exception from the gеneral rule of not reviewing issues raised in pre-trial motions where sufficient evidence independent of that sought to be suppressed supports the conviction or where the issue would normally be waived by entry of a plea of guilty.” See State‘s Petition for Discretionary Review filed in Johnson v. State, cited in note 2, ante.

The problems inherent in the proposed solutions when the pretrial motion is to suppress evidence are further complicatеd in the cause at bar by the determination of this Court that a plea of guilty waives or forfeits the rights accorded by the Speedy Trial Act,

Wooten v. State, supra, at 563;

Flores v. State, 606 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.Cr.App.1980);

Luna v. State, 602 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), and its hоlding that forfeiting rights under the Act through a guilty plea is “an exception to the general rule of V.A.C.C.P. Article 44.02 that matters raised by written motions filed before trial аre preserved for appeal after a guilty plea,”

Wooten supra, at 563. Thus, in this case the way to plenary review suggested by the State, is blocked by the exception created by

Ramirez v. State, 590 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), Luna, Flores and their followings.³

Ramirez v. State, supra, was a panel opinion, and later the issue sharply divided the Court En Banc in Luna and Flores. The construction by the majority that rights under the Speedy Trial Act are waived by virtue of a guilty plea is now found to be incorrect—both ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍grammatically and on account of legislative history—fоr the reasons explained by the dissenting opinion in each cause:

Luna, supra, 602 S.W.2d at 267, and

Flores, supra, 606 S.W.2d at 860. We hold that such rights claimed by an accused under the Act are not lost by a subsequent plea of guilty, and if convicted on his plea and supporting evidence that defendant may appeal to have the correctness of overruling his motion to dismiss decided by an appellate court. Ramirez, Luna, Flores, all supra, and all other decisions to the contrary are overruled.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Waco Court of Appеals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for its plenary consideration of appellant‘s second ground of error on its merits.

W.C. DAVIS, J., dissents.

ONION, Presiding Judge, concurring.

I reluctantly concur.

Ramirez v. State, 590 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), a panel opinion, held that a defendant waived his rights under the Speedy Trial Act (Article 32A.02, V.A.C.C.P.), by pleading guilty. I was a member of that panel, and rеgrettably did not dissent. When the matter was considered by the court en banc in

Luna v. State, 602 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), and in

Flores v. State, 606 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), the same decision was reached. I joined the dissenting opinions in those cases because I concluded Ramirez was wrongly decided and the majority in Luna and Flores was misinterpreting § 3 of Article 32A.02, supra. I still believe that way, and for that reason I concur in today‘s opinion.

However wrong the decisions in Ramirez, Luna and Flores may have been, an interpretation of Article 32A.02, § 3, V.A.C.C.P., was established by this court which for almost three years has been consistently followed by this court, other appellate courts and the trial courts of this state. The Legislature has met and adjourned without action to change that interpretation. We will now undoubtedly be swamped with post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings concerning the change in our ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍interpretation of the Speedy Trial Act. Law that has been learnеd by the Bench and Bar will now have to be unlearned, and without question will not be unlearned fast enough to prevent many appeals and numerous new legal questions. The doctrine of stare decisis still has some meaning. There should be some finality in the decision-making process of this cоurt.

While I am glad to see the court finally interpret § 3 of the Speedy Trial Act properly, I reluctantly concur in today‘s opinion for the rеasons stated.

Notes

1

All emphasis is added by the writer of this opinion unless otherwise indicated.

2

E.g.,

Pittman v. State, 622 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), submitted on State‘s motion for rehearing January 27, 1982; Christal v. State, — S.W.2d —, No. 67,410, Octobеr 31, 1981, submitted on State‘s motion for rehearing January 27, 1982; Schwerdtfeger v. State, No. 183-82, submitted on State‘s petition for discretionary review October 6, 1982; Sanchez v. State, No. 351-82, submitted on State‘s petition for discretionary review November 3, 1982; Johnson v. State, No. 731-82, submitted on State‘s petition for discretionary ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍review February 9, 1983. See also

Flores v. State, 622 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), submitted on appellаnt‘s motion for rehearing October 21, 1981. At this writing each cause still pends disposition.

3

Indeed, the court below declined to address the merits of aрpellant‘s second ground of error (contending that the evidence showed the State had not complied with the Speedy Trial Act), finding instead that all rights under the Act had been waived by his plea of guilty, citing Wooten.

Case Details

Case Name: Martin v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: May 11, 1983

Citation: 652 S.W.2d 777

Docket Number: 859-82

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.