Texas Courts of Appeals
DeLeon v. State - 7th COA
07/09/09 : Cite No. 07-07-0325-CR : Stacking Sentences
After the defendant's conviction for multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and indecency with a child, did the trial court correctly assess punishment under Penal Code §3.03 when it stacked counts with offense dates prior to September 1997 on top of counts with later offense dates?
Yes. Because the punishment did not exceed the statutory limit that was in effect at the time when the offenses occurred, the stacking was permissible.
Let's start by acknowledging that the defendant's legal issue is merely academic because he starts by serving a 99-sentence (with a 30-year flat time before parole eligibility) regardless of how this case comes out. And, even if the defendant won on his issue, the stacking order would leave him faced with a 120-year stacked sentence (with a 60-year flat time before parole eligibility). The court of appeals provides a very thoughtful analysis of the part of the bill that few read: the effective date language. As the legislature expands the stacking law in the future, this case could be an important reference for how to word that provision. And now the defendant will have to finish a 99-year sentence and then begin a 120-year series of sentences. Good luck with that.
Grays v. State - 14th COA
07/14/09 : Cite No. 14-08-00051-CR : Cumulating Sentences
Was the defendant's sentence correctly assessed when the trial court ordered cumulation of the defendant's sentence of 13 years for burglary of a habitation with his sentence of five years for aggravated sexual assault of a child after it failed to orally under the cumulation during sentencing?
No. While the trial court heard the State's motion to cumulate, it withheld ruling on it until the State submitted a written motion with supporting case law. This action did not establish the trial court's intention to cumulate sentences and did not establish that the defendant agreed to allow the trial court to cumulate his sentences at a later date outside his presence. The State offered no authority creating an exception to the statutory requirement that sentencing for a felony offense must be pronounced in the defendant's presence nor any authority establishing an exception to the general rule that when there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence in open court and the sentence set out in the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.
The prosecutor said at sentencing, "And I don't know the proper time for you to rule on [the motion to cumulate]...." As we have seen in other cases, the proper time is at sentencing when the defendant is standing before the court. Otherwise, the judge loses jurisdiction over the case. So, if the judge wants additional time to consider a request to stack sentences, the case should be reset for formal sentencing in the presence of the defendant at a later date.
TDCAA is pleased to offer our members unique case summaries from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas Courts of Appeals and the Texas Attorney General. In addition to the basic summaries, each case will have a link to the full text opinion and will offer exclusive prosecutor commentary explaining how the case may impact you as a prosecutor. The case summaries are for the benefit of prosecutors, their staff members, and members of the law enforcement community. These summaries are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized use, printing, copying, disclosure, dissemination of or reliance upon this communication by persons other than the intended recipient may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please email comments, problems, or questions to [email protected]. In addition, if you would like to discuss the summaries with fellow prosecutors, look for the thread in our criminal forum.