State v. Romero, s. 01-94-01219-CR
Decision Date | 23 December 1997 |
Docket Number | Nos. 01-94-01219-CR,s. 01-94-01219-CR |
Citation | 962 S.W.2d 143 |
Parties | The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Miguel ROMERO, Appellee. through 01-94-01221-CR. (1st Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Stanley Schneider, Houston, for Appellant.
John B. Holmes, Alan Curry, Houston, for Appellee.
Before O'CONNOR, MIRABAL and TAFT, JJ.
Miguel Romero, the appellee, was arrested on drug charges on October 27, 1993. Upon his arrest, the State seized $71,660 and other property. On October 27, 1993, the State Comptroller assessed a controlled substance stamp tax of $475,726 in connection with the drugs and filed a notice of levy. The State seized $3,246.04 from Romero's bank account, in partial satisfaction of the tax. 1 The State filed a forfeiture action against the seized cash and property on November 10, 1993 (trial court cause number 9358525). On August 12, 1994, the trial court signed an agreed judgment releasing to the State $69,160, a truck, and three scales and to Romero $2,500, a truck, and miscellaneous other items. 2
On January 13, 1994, Romero was indicted for possession of marihuana (trial court cause number 678626) and possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to deliver (trial court cause number 678627).
On October 6, 1994, Romero filed a pretrial writ of habeas corpus (trial court cause number 9423574, our cause number 01-94-01219-CR), claiming his criminal prosecutions (cause numbers 678626 and 678627) should be barred by double jeopardy because of the forfeiture action (cause number 9358525). There was no mention in the writ of the tax assessment proceeding. The trial court granted Romero habeas corpus relief on November 17, 1994, holding the criminal prosecutions (cause numbers 678626 and 678627) were barred by double jeopardy.
The State appealed 3 and filed a brief in this Court challenging the trial court's ruling. In response to the State's brief, Romero claimed his criminal prosecution was barred by double jeopardy because he had already been punished by (1) the forfeiture action and (2) the assessment of the stamp tax.
This Court affirmed the trial court's order granting relief on the ground that the forfeiture action barred further criminal prosecution. State v. Romero, 907 S.W.2d 858, 861 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment, citing its decision in Fant v. State, 931 S.W.2d 299, 309 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), in which it held a forfeiture action is a civil in rem proceeding that is neither punitive nor criminal in nature for double jeopardy purposes. Romero v. State, 946 S.W.2d 347, 348 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to this Court for consideration of Romero's alternative argument, that the assessment of the stamp tax was punishment which barred later criminal prosecution. Id.
We have reviewed Romero's petition for writ of habeas corpus and the order granting habeas corpus relief, and we hold that Romero's alternative argument is not properly before this Court. Romero's only argument in his application for writ of habeas corpus was that the forfeiture constituted punishment and barred further prosecution. The allegation that the assessment of the stamp tax constituted punishment was not included in the writ of habeas corpus, although it was mentioned in passing at the habeas corpus hearing. In the trial court's order granting habeas relief, the court specifically stated the forfeiture proceeding constituted punishment and barred further prosecution. That sole ground for relief has been reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
We may not consider grounds not raised before the trial court. See State v. Balderas, 915 S.W.2d 913, 919 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd) ( ); Ex parte Torres, 941 S.W.2d 219, 220 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1996, pet. ref'd) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Dupuy
...requesting a reduction in bail). We may not consider grounds not raised in the trial court. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a) ; State v. Romero , 962 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.App–Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (although argument concerning stamp tax was mentioned in passing at habeas hearing, only......
-
Pair v. State
... ... State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). In reviewing the trial court's decision, we do not engage in our own factual review. Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim. App.1990); Best v. State, 118 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). At a suppression ... ...
-
Ex parte Bui
...either in the appellants' written motion or at the hearing. Therefore, we do not consider its merits. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1; State v. Romero, 962 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no 1 We have restyled the causes as "Ex parte Diana Bui" and "Ex parte Jimmy Phai Bui" inst......
-
Ex parte Nelson
...at 485 (declining to consider argument that appellant did not raise in application for writ of habeas corpus in trial court); State v. Romero, 962 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). Because appellant did not argue in his amended application for a writ of habeas co......