Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

Criminal defendants in Texas with prior criminal convictions can be disadvantaged at nearly all stages of the Texas prosecution. Law enforcement officers who notice that an individual has a lengthy criminal record may have a bias against them and seek them out for arrest. Many Texas crimes can be charged at a higher level if an individual has prior convictions. During a trial, the judge or jury may be able to consider prior crimes or convictions in determining a defendant’s guilt, and at sentencing, prior convictions can be used to increase the punishment for a crime. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently rejected a post-conviction petition filed by a woman who had been sentenced to 40 years in a Texas prison for a theft offense, based in part upon a 2001 federal criminal conviction.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published judicial opinion, the defendant was convicted of a theft crime in Texas in 2023. Because she had a final criminal conviction out of a federal court in Alaska from 2001, the punishment for her more recent crime was enhanced to a 40-year prison term. After her conviction was final and the direct appeals were exhausted, the woman sought a petition for Habeas Corpus post-conviction relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Habeas relief is available in Texas for several reasons, including if the sentence issued was illegal. The woman argued that her sentence was illegally enhanced by the prior conviction because the prior conviction was not “final” as determined by Texas law.

In support of her petition, the woman argued that her prior conviction was not finalized, as she had sought appeals and other relief through the federal court. The high Texas court rejected her arguments, ruling that under Texas law, a conviction is final after all appellate remedies had been pursued and rejected, and the conviction was affirmed by the appellate court in a final mandate. Because the woman had exhausted her appeals in the federal case, the ruling was final under Texas law, and her application for Habeas relief was denied. As a result of the most recent ruling, the woman will be required to serve out her 40-year sentence for the Texas theft crime.

Prosecutors in Texas have the incentive to pursue the most serious charges and convictions that they can justify, as their reputations may depend on the number of serious crimes that they have prosecuted. Because of this, prosecutors are often known to overcharge defendants; pursuing charges for crimes that a defendant could not reasonably have committed. Prosecutors sometimes take advantage of ambiguously worded legal statutes to pursue serious felony charges against defendants for which they may not be applicable. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas recently issued an opinion reversing a man’s conviction for evading arrest based upon the ambiguous language of the statute.

The statute in question states: “A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.” The pivotal question revolves around whether the defendant’s knowledge extends to the lawfulness of the arrest or detention itself. While one interpretation suggests that the defendant must be aware of the lawfulness of the arrest or detention, another viewpoint posits that such knowledge is not required. This discrepancy has led to differing opinions among courts of appeals, highlighting the need for clarification.

In dissecting the legislative intent behind the statute, the opinion emphasizes a text-first approach to statutory interpretation. It examines the history of amendments to the statute, particularly the 1993 amendment, which replaced an exception to prosecution with the term “lawfully.” This change suggests that the legislature intended for the term to function similarly to the repealed exception, indicating a non-substantive alteration.

In a November 2023 case before an appeals court in Texas, the defendant asked for a review of the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence. Reviewing the defendant’s appeal, the higher court ultimately disagreed with his argument and affirmed the original verdict. The court’s opinion highlights the difficulty of suppressing incriminating evidence when a defendant commits multiple offenses in a row, serving as a reminder for Texans of just how difficult it can be to successfully suppress evidence in criminal cases.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers on patrol one evening used an automated license plate reader to discover that a nearby vehicle’s owner was wanted on multiple outstanding arrest warrants. Additionally, the officers noticed that the vehicle did not match the one for which the vehicle’s tags had been issued.

The officers put on their lights and attempted to conduct a traffic stop. The defendant stopped at first, but then he proceeded to flee the scene. What ensued was a high-speed chase that lasted approximately one hour. Eventually, officers used spike strips to stop the defendant in his car. The officers then arrested the defendant for avoiding arrest.

Continue reading