Ex parte Sims
| Decision Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 71655,71655 |
| Citation | 868 S.W.2d 803 |
| Parties | Ex parte Billy Ross SIMS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. In a single proceeding Applicant was convicted of two murders, one alleged in an indictment and one in an information. Punishment was assessed at life imprisonment in each cause, to be served consecutively. These convictions were affirmed. Sims v. State, 807 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
Applicant contends that the trial court improperly cumulated the sentences in these causes because they arose out of the same criminal episode and were prosecuted in the same criminal action. See LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The trial court has entered findings, supported by the record. Applicant was initially indicted for capital murder, but entered into a plea agreement. The State agreed to dismiss the capital murder charges, and Applicant agreed to plead guilty to both murders. They also agreed a life sentence would be assessed in each cause, the trial court would enter affirmative findings that Applicant used a deadly weapon, and it would be left to the court as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively.
In LaPorte we held, "An improper cumulation order is, in essence, a void sentence, and such error cannot be waived." Id. at 415. However, we have since noted that there are three types of rules in our legal system: absolute requirements and prohibitions which cannot be waived or forfeited; rights of litigants which must be implemented unless affirmatively waived; and rights of litigants which are implemented upon request and can be forfeited by a failure to invoke them. Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279-80 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). LaPorte arose in the context of a failure to object, not an affirmative waiver. The first issue presented here is whether a defendant may affirmatively waive concurrent sentences when he is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, or whether the prohibition against consecutive sentences is absolute and not subject even to affirmative waiver.
A defendant may not by agreement render legal a punishment which is not otherwise authorized by law. Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). In circumstances such as Applicant's, "sentences shall run concurrently." V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 3.03. This language creates an absolute restriction of a trial court's general authority to impose consecutive sentences 1 similar to the restrictions Article 42.12, § 3g(a), V.A.C.C.P. places on a trial court's general authority to grant probation, as was addressed in Heath. An absolute requirement or prohibition may not be lawfully avoided, even with partisan consent. Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 280. Accordingly, Applicant was not able to consent to imposition of consecutive sentences, and entry of the cumulation order was not authorized, notwithstanding the terms of the plea agreement.
Applicant is entitled to habeas corpus relief. We must now determine the relief to which he is entitled.
When a defendant successfully challenges a conviction obtained through a negotiated plea of guilty, the appropriate remedy is specific performance of the plea agreement, if possible. Shannon v. State, 708 S.W.2d 850, 852 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). If specific performance is not possible, the plea must be withdrawn and the parties must be returned to their original positions. Id.
In the present case, the question is whether imposition of consecutive sentences was part of the plea bargain, rendering specific performance impossible. Although the parties did not agree that the trial court would cumulate the sentences, they agreed the court could require the sentences be served consecutively. The State bargained for the possibility of consecutive sentences, and Applicant bargained for potential concurrent sentences. Thus, at least the possibility of consecutive sentences was an element of the plea agreement. If we were to reform the judgment in one cause by deleting the cumulation order, the resulting judgments and terms of sentences would be within the scope of the plea agreement, as the parties knew that concurrent sentences could result. However, the parties also foresaw the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosley v. State
...line of cases); Ex parte McJunkins, 954 S.W.2d 39 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(recalling mandate in order to overrule Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) ); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)(DuBose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), State v. Carter, 915 S.W.......
-
Cockrell v. State
...those that are statutorily or constitutionally mandated, or are otherwise not optional with the parties. See, e.g., Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)(penal code provision that "sentences shall run concurrently" is absolute requirement and cumulation order to contrary was not......
-
Prystash v. State
...1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch.838, 5, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 2898, 2901. 10. The principal case that the Court found analogous, Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. Cr. App. 1993), held that a statutorily required sentencing procedure was an absolute requirement which was not waivable. That holding ......
-
Figueroa v. State
...is outside the maximum or minimum range of punishment is unauthorized by law and therefore illegal."); see also Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (noting that sentence outside statutory limits is void, and void sentence cannot be waived), overruled on other grounds b......
-
Punishment Phase
...remedy upon reversal is to return the parties to their respective positions prior to the plea bargain agreement. Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); (improperly cumulated sentences); Ex parte Miller, 921 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Where a void sentence was assessed......
-
Table of Cases
...640 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982), §5:91 Ex parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), §15:105.6 Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), §20:21.8.4 Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), §§12:43.1, 12:43.2 Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. C......
-
Punishment Phase
...remedy upon reversal is to return the parties to their respective positions prior to the plea bargain agreement. Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); (improperly cumulated sentences); Ex parte Miller, 921 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Where a void sentence was assessed......
-
Punishment Phase
...remedy upon reversal is to return the parties to their respective positions prior to the plea bargain agreement. Ex parte Sims, 868 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); (improperly cumulated sentences); Ex parte Miller, 921 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Where a void sentence was assessed......