McGuire v. State

• Decision Date: 10 May 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 01–14–00241–CR,NO. 01–14–00240–CR, NO. 01–14–01023–CR,01–14–00240–CR
• Citation: 493 S.W.3d 177
• Parties: Sean Michael McGuire, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee and The State of Texas, Appellant v. Sean Michael McGuire, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

493 S.W.3d 177

Sean Michael McGuire, Appellant

v.The State of Texas, AppelleeandThe State of Texas, Appellant

v.Sean Michael McGuire, Appellee

NO. 01–14–00240–CR

NO. 01–14–00241–CR

NO. 01–14–01023–CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Opinion issued May 10, 2016

Rehearing Overruled July 7, 2016

Kristen Jernigan, Georgetown, TX, for Appellant.

John F. Healey, Jr., District Attorney, Fort Bend County, TX, Gail Kikawa McConnell, Assistant District Attorney, Richmond, TX, for State.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.

OPINION

Harvey Brown

, Justice

This is a fatality DWI case. The driver, Sean McGuire, refused consent when a police officer asked him to submit his blood for analysis of its alcohol concentration. Despite his lack of consent, and without a warrant, the police officer obtained a blood sample at a local hospital. The blood draw occurred approximately 90 minutes after the collision and revealed an alcohol concentration that was twice the legal limit. McGuire had two prior out-of-state DWIs, which served to enhance this third DWI to a third-degree felony.

In two separate indictments, McGuire was indicted for (1) felony murder, which is a first-degree felony under Section 19.03(b)(3) of the Texas Penal Code

,¹ (2) intoxication manslaughter, which is a second-degree felony under Section 49.08,² and (3) failure to stop and render aid, which in this case is a second-degree felony.³ The jury convicted McGuire of felony murder. It also convicted him of failure to stop and render aid.

After trial, the State asserted that the intoxication manslaughter charge—a charge that was submitted to the jury but on which the jury was not allowed to convict if it returned a guilty verdict for murder—remained pending. McGuire sought habeas relief, arguing that further prosecution on the intoxication manslaughter charge violated double jeopardy because a jury already convicted him of murder. The trial court granted relief and dismissed the pending intoxication-manslaughter charge.

McGuire appeals his two convictions.⁴ The State appeals the habeas order.⁵ This opinion resolves all three appeals. First, we conclude that the blood draw was unconstitutional and reverse the murder conviction. In doing so, we address only those issues raised in the appeal of the murder conviction that we view as necessary for the case to be remanded for further proceedings on that charge. These include (1) whether the two out-of-state DWIs may enhance this DWI offense to a felony and (2) the venue motion. The other appellate issues that are mooted by our holding are not addressed. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1

(requiring opinion to address issues necessary to final disposition). Second, we affirm the conviction for failure to stop and render aid. Third, given the disposition of the murder appeal, we conclude that the basis for granting habeas relief is now moot and vacate the trial court's order granting habeas relief.

Background

After attending a benefit at a bar for more than five hours, McGuire was driving home shortly after midnight when he struck a motorcycle on a rural road. Both vehicles were traveling in the same direction when McGuire overcame the motorcycle and his truck's front bumper became entangled with the motorcycle's back fender. The entangled truck and motorcycle traveled together for some distance. The motorcycle eventually slipped down and became lodged under McGuire's truck. McGuire's truck then dragged the motorcycle to the next intersection, with sparks coming from both vehicles, where the motorcycle finally broke loose and slid to a stop. At some point during the process, the motorcycle driver, David Stidman, was knocked off his motorcycle. Stidman died from his injuries at the scene.

The parties contested the visibility of Stidman's motorcycle. There was evidence that it was a dark color and had two small backlights instead of the more common large, central taillight. The evidence was inconsistent whether those two small lights were functioning. Stidman's father testified that the lights were working that evening. However, McGuire stated repeatedly on the night of the collision that he did not see any lights before impact, and his expert testified that he was denied access to determine whether the lights were functioning properly.

McGuire did not testify at trial; however, various witnesses testified to statements he made the night of the collision while police were investigating. McGuire told these witnesses that he never saw the motorcycle. He heard a noise on impact, thought he may have hit “something or someone.” He then turned his vehicle back to the direction from which he had been driving to determine what had occurred, suggesting that he was unaware that he had collided with a motorcycle and dragged it down the road. After he turned his vehicle around, he saw nothing along the shoulder of the road, but he did not stop to investigate. Instead, he drove to a nearby gas station and called his mother and two police acquaintances, who called law enforcement to begin its investigation.

Meanwhile, two other drivers saw Stidman's body lying near the road a short distance from the gas station. One of the drivers called for emergency assistance. Emergency personnel arrived within minutes of the collision, but Stidman was already dead.

McGuire remained at the gas station until police officers arrived. They interviewed him briefly and then drove him back to where Stidman's body had been found. While some police officers reported that McGuire showed no signs of intoxication, others stated that he had glassy eyes, smelled of alcohol, and was unsteady on his feet.

Based on indications that McGuire was driving while intoxicated and because the accident resulted in a death, one of the officers took McGuire to a local hospital to have his blood drawn to determine its alcohol concentration. McGuire refused consent to the blood draw. The police obtained a blood sample without McGuire's consent and without taking any steps to obtain a warrant. A police officer testified that he did so based on a Transportation Code provision that states that an officer “shall require the taking of a specimen” under certain circumstances, including when an officer reasonably believes a driver was operating a vehicle while intoxicated and a person died as a result of an accident involving that driver. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 724.012(b)

(West 2011). McGuire's blood was drawn less than 90 minutes after the accident. The blood specimen had an alcohol concentration of 0.16—twice the legal limit.

In one indictment, McGuire faced charges of murder (because he had two previous out-of-state DWIs, which were used to enhance this DWI offense to a felony, thereby enabling the State to prosecute for felony murder) and intoxication manslaughter. Through a second indictment, McGuire also was charged with failure to stop and render aid. All charges were presented to one jury in a single trial.

McGuire sought pretrial habeas relief in 2012, arguing that the murder indictment failed to allege an offense because the two “act[s] clearly dangerous to human life,” as described in the indictment, were not acts at all, but, instead, simple omissions: failing to (1) maintain an adequate lookout for traffic and road conditions and (2) take proper evasive actions. See McGuire v. State, No. 01–11–01089–CR, 2012 WL 344952, at *1 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 2, 2012, pet. ref'd)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). This court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying habeas relief because failure to keep a proper lookout can occur through an act. Id. at *2. The case proceeded on all charges.

Before trial, McGuire filed a motion to transfer venue. The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion. The trial judge stated that “if we can't get a jury then I'll revisit this motion.” On the first day of trial, McGuire reurged his motion based on an article published in the local newspaper the day before trial that quoted the prosecutor regarding potential evidence in the case. The trial court again denied the motion, saying that it would revisit it after voir dire if they could not get a fair jury. At the conclusion of voir dire, various veniremembers were struck for cause or by peremptory strikes. Twelve jurors plus one alternate were seated without McGuire reurging his venue motion.

At trial, the three charges, as well as various lesser-included offenses, were submitted to the jury. Before the charge was read to the jury, McGuire successfully argued that the jury should be instructed that it could convict on murder, convict on intoxication manslaughter, or acquit on both, but that it could not convict on both of those charges. That limitation was included in the jury charge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder. The jury assessed punishment at 18 years' confinement and imposed a fine. The jury also convicted on failure to stop and render aid. The jury assessed punishment at 5 years' confinement and imposed another fine.

The day after the trial court signed the judgment of conviction, the Fort Bend County District Attorney's office stated that the intoxication manslaughter charge “will remain pending until the disposition of the appeal” of the murder charge. According to McGuire, at that point, he “was brought before a magistrate and formally charged with intoxication manslaughter (even though he had already been tried for that offense) and a[ ] bond was set.”

McGuire then filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the State violated his right against double jeopardy. He argued that he “has already been convicted of murder for causing the death of David Stidman and is currently charged with Intoxication Manslaughter for causing the death of David Stidman. This is an unconstitutional double jeopardy violation.” Following a hearing, the trial court granted McGuire's application for habeas...