Apolinar v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 682-90,682-90 |
| Citation | 820 S.W.2d 792 |
| Parties | Ex parte Rodolfo APOLINAR, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Loraine Efron Kutler, San Antonio, for appellant.
Fred G. Rodriguez, Dist. Atty. and Patrick Hancock, Michael Raign and Edward F. Shaughnessy, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
This case is before us on the State's petition for discretionary review. The State contends that "the Court of Appeals erred in holding that it had jurisdiction" to address appellant's claim. We hold that the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction.
Appellant filed a special plea in the trial court alleging that his first trial, which resulted in a mistrial, was improperly terminated. Article 27.05(3), V.A.C.C.P. He claimed that his right against twice being put in jeopardy for the same offense proscribed the second trial. The trial court, in a pretrial determination, refused to bar the second proceeding. Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeals in San Antonio.
The court of appeals decided that, although appellant filed a special plea, it was possible to interpret the special plea as a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. Thus, following Ex Parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), the court of appeals found jurisdiction to address appellant's claim. Apolinar v. State, 790 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990).
A defendant may file a special plea in order to assert a former jeopardy claim. Article 27.05, V.A.C.C.P. However, all issues of fact presented in the special plea are to be tried by the trier of fact on the trial on the merits. Article 27.07, V.A.C.C.P. The appellant in this case appealed from the trial court's ruling on the special plea prior to trial on the merits.
The statutorily prescribed procedure utilized on a special plea mandates that the defendant's claim in the special plea shall not be determined before the trial on the merits. Article 27.07, supra. Trial courts are required to submit the special plea to the trier of fact unless, assuming all the facts alleged in the plea to be true, the special plea does not present a legally sufficient former jeopardy claim. Arredondo v. State, 582 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Simco v. State, 9 Cr.R. 338 (1880). If the trial court determines that the special plea presents a legally sufficient claim to submit it to the trier of fact then it must be submitted and tried by the trier of fact together with the plea of not guilty. Villarreal v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 213, 355 S.W.2d 516 cert. denied, 371 U.S. 867, 83 S.Ct. 127, 9 L.Ed.2d 103.
Here the defendant appealed from the pretrial ruling by the trial court. That ruling was not a final judgment. The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.
The courts of appeals derive their jurisdiction from the constitution of the state of Texas. The constitution expressly provides that:
Courts of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of their respective districts, which shall extend to all cases of which the District Courts or County Courts have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law. Art. 5, sec. 6, TEX. CONST.
There is no statutory provision which grants the courts of appeals jurisdiction over a special plea before a final judgment has been entered. Thus, the procedure authorized for a special plea requires the defendant to be twice put to trial before the merits of his former jeopardy claim may be reached. Not only does the statutory language provide as such but the Fifth Circuit has specifically determined this to be so.
Texas law provides that a claim of former jeopardy may be raised at the inception of the prosecution under attack, but that the facts concerning the special Plea are determined in the course of the trial on the merits, See Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. art. 27.05 & 27.07 (1966 & Supp.1981). The Plea is a mechanism for avoidance of reconviction, not retrial. In its limited function, it falls short of the protections extended to criminal defendants by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. Baker v. Metcalfe, 633 F.2d 1198, 1200 n. 3 (5th Cir.) cert. denied 451 U.S. 974, 101 S.Ct. 2055, 68 L.Ed.2d 354 (1981)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Houth
...of a special plea brought pursuant to Article 27.05, V.A.C.C.P., such being in the nature of an interlocutory appeal. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). It may well be, however, that when a trial court dismisses a prosecution on purported authority of Article 27.05, supra,......
-
People v. Bell
...state precedent which interpreted Texas statutes as requiring a trial on pleas of once in jeopardy. (Ibid., citing Apolinar v. State (Tex.Ct.App.1991) 820 S.W.2d 792, 793–794.)34 Arguably, the fourth plea—not guilty by reason of insanity—also does not implicate the guilt or innocence of the......
-
Gonzalez v. State
...raise and appeal a successive prosecutions claim before the trial of the indictment which he attacks); see also Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 793-94 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). This is because requiring a defendant to go through trial before appealing a successive prosecutions claim is inconsi......
-
Ex parte Queen
...for preserving the defendant's right against double jeopardy in the face of a retrial on insufficient evidence. See, Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), Ex parte Rathmell, 717 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), and, Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552, 555 Consequently, I ......
-
Double Jeopardy
...U.S., 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 DOUBLE JEOPARDY §8:52 Tൾඑൺඌ Cඋංආංඇൺඅ Lൺඐඒൾඋ’ඌ Hൺඇൽൻඈඈ 8-16 (1977); Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App.1991). PRACTICE TIP : When raising a double jeopardy claim, always cite both the Fifth Amendment and Art. 1, Sec. 14 of the......
-
Double Jeopardy and Collateral Estoppel
...Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982)); Abney v. U.S. , 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977); Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). The issuance of the writ is the necessary first step for the trial court to hear the basis for the relief sought. There is......
-
Double Jeopardy
...Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Abney v. U.S., 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977); Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App.1991). §8:52 Special Pleas CCP Art. 27.05. Defendant’s Special Plea “A defendant’s only special plea is that he has already b......
-
Misdemeanor Defense
...after acquittal or conviction. A double jeopardy claim should be raised via a pretrial writ of habeas corpus . [ Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).] “In state and federal courts jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn. In a bench trial ......