## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0338- 09

C O R BE TT K . W EINN , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S EVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

LUBBOCK CO UNTY J OHNS ON , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h M E YE RS , P RI CE , W OMACK , H OL C OM B , and C OCHR AN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P. J. , f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng opi ni on i n w hi c h K EASLE R , and H ERVEY , J J ., jo in e d . K EASLE R , J. , f i l e d a di s s e nt i ng opi ni on i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P. J. , and H ERVEY , J. , j oi ne d. O P I N I O N After his plea i n bar on double -jeopa rdy g rounds was ove rruled, a ppellant plead no lo contende re to p os se ssi on wi th int e nt to de liv e r an d g uil ty to manu fa c tur e of me tha mph e tamin e , b oth in amount less than 400 g rams, but at lea st 2 0 0 gra m s . After a punishment trial, a jury assessed punishment at 30 y ear s’ imprisonment for ea ch off ense. The trial court order ed the two sentenc es to run conc urre ntly

. On appe al, appe llant contended that his convic t i o n of both manufa cturingand possession2

with intent to deliver violated the F ifth Amendment’s prohibition ag ainst double jeopar dy

. W einn

v . S tate , 2 81 S.W. 3d

63 3, 63 6 ( Te x. Ap p. –A mari llo , 2 00 9) . T he c ourt of app e a ls a g re e d w ith appellant and the state (which initially conce ded the issue) , holding that the two c harg es punished appellant twice for the same off ense. Id. at 642-43. The court of a ppeals va cate d the conviction for manufa cturingmethamphetamine a nd aff irmed the trial c ourt with respe ct to the conviction for possession with intent to del i ver. Id. at 643. The state appea led the cour t’s order vaca ting of the manufa cturingconviction. We gr anted r ev i ew o f t he double- jeopar dy issues raised in the state ’s petition for discretionar

y revie w. 1. Can a de fenda

nt be c o n v i cted a

nd punished for both manuf actur e and the subsequent deliver

y or possession with the i ntent to deliver of the s ame quantity of controlled substanc es, or doe s Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.112 allow more than one “ allowable unit of pr osecution,” i.e . one for the manufa cture and one for the d e l i v e r y? 2
. Di d t h e c o u rt o f ap p ea l s err i nfi n d i n g t h at t h e o ff en s es o f m an u fa ct u ri n g a controlled substanc e and posse ssion with int ent to de liver a controlled substanc e ar e the same f

or double-jeopa

rdy purposes, even though the separ ate of fense s are meant to p un ish se pa rate da ng e rs ? We c on c lu de t hat th e le gisl atu re i nt end ed t hat man ufac tu re an d s im ul tan eous po sse ssi on wi th intent to deliver of the sa me sin gl e q u an tity

of controlled substanc es constitutes a sing le offe nse. Pun ish inga

pp e lla nt t wi c e fo r the same of

fe ns e wo uld vio late his c on sti tut ion a l rig hts a g a ins t do ub le je op ard y . T he re fo re , w e a ff

ir m th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls. F acts The re cord r efle cts that, in response to a complaint about strang e smells, sheriff’ s deputies approa ched a

ppellant' s proper

ty
. They detec ted a strong odor of a nhy drous ammonia and obse rved appellant put a box in the back of his pic kup truck. After detaining appellant, the de puties sear ched3

the prope rty , the house, the truc k, and appe llant himself. They discovere d evidenc e of methamphetamine manufa cture , including numerous empty blister packs of Sudafed, a microwave
c on ta ini ngSud a fe d r e sid

ue , a n a nh y dr ou s ammo nia

dump, lithiu

m batteri es, mur iatic a c id, dr a in
c le ane r, c ans of

He e t, 1 5 c ans of sta

rt e r fl uid , a hydr og e n- c hlo ri de g e ne rator , ro c k sa lt, and a sin g le plastic jug with 224.96 g rams of liquid that contained methamphetamine in one of the late stag es of manufa cture . They

also found a bottle of a cutting ag ent, a razor blade, plastic bag g ies, including
on e that c on ta ine d me tha

mph e tamin e re sid

ue , a nd dig ita l po rt a

ble sc a le s. Th e state fi le d a

thr e e -c ount i nd ic tme nt. Th e fi rs t c ount, po sse ssi on wi th i nte nt t o
manu fa c tur e , w a s d ism iss e d b e fo re tr ia l. T he state a lle g e d in c ou nt tw o that a

pp e lla nt k no wi ng ly po sse sse d methamph e tamin e , with int e nt to de liv e r. Count thr e e a lle g e d that a pp e lla nt k no wi ng ly manufa cture d methamphetamine. All counts alleg ed an ag g reg ate weig ht less than 400 g rams, but

a t l e a s t 2 0 0 g r am s o f m e t h amp h e t am i n e , m a k i n g e a c h o f f e n s e a f i r s t
- d e g r e e f

e l o n y. T EX A S H E AL TH
AND S AF ETY C ODE § 481.112. Argum ents of the P artie s Appellant conte nds t h at t he leg islature intended to c reate only one allowa

ble unit of prosec ution in the circumstances presente d here beca use t he st atute li sts a “continuum” of offe nses desig ned as a lternative me ans of pr osecuting a d ef endant f or eng ag ing in the dr

ug -traf ficking proce ss. Fur

thermore , appellant contends that, even under the Blockburge r test, appellant’s
c on vic tio n v iol a te s d ou

ble jeo par dy

be c a us e he e ng a g e d in

on ly a sin g le a c t, s pe c if

ic a lly manufa cture , and that possession was a n in ev i t ab le re sult of manufac ture, re quiring no additional
e vid e nc e to p ro ve po sse ssi on . F ina lly , in t he e ve nt t hat le g isl a tiv e int e nt i s unc le ar, the c ourt sh ou ld

a pp ly the ru le of

le nit y to f ind in f avo r o f a pp e lla nt.4

The state contends that eac h offe nse re quires proof of diffe rent e lements, thus satisfying the Blockburge r

test. Furthe r, base d on the use of the disjunctive, the distinct differe nces in nature a nd dang ers of

manufa cturing and delivery offe nses, and a leg islative history of incre asing intoleranc e fo r d ru g c ri me s, the le g isl a tur e int e nd e d to pe rm it mult ipl e c on vic tio ns . Do uble Je opa r dy The F ifth Amendment’s Double J eopar dy Clause provides that no person shall “be subje ct for the same offe nce to be twice put in jeopar dy of life or limb.” U .S. Const itution, Amendment V. I t protects an a ccuse d ag ainst: 1) a sec ond prosec ution for the same offe nse af ter a cquit t al ; 2 ) a
se c on d p ro se c uti on

fo r the same of

fe ns e a ft e r c on vic tio n; a

nd 3) mul tip le punis hme nts fo r t he same offe nse. Br own v . O hio , 4 32 U. S. 1 61 , 1 65 (1 97 7) . Ac la im o f m ult ipl e punis hme nts may

be va lid if on e of fe ns e is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e of the oth e r a

nd the same c on du c t is punis he d tw ic e or if the same c riminal act is punished under two distinct statutes when the leg islatur e intended the conduct to be punishe d under e ither statute, but not both. Lan gs v . S tate , 1 8 3 S. W. 3 d

6 8 0 , 6 8 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2006). To de te rm ine wh e the r t

he re have be e n mu lti ple punis hme nts fo r the same of fe ns e , w e be g in wi th t he “ same e le me nts ” te st f ro m Blockburge r v. United States , 2 8 4 U. S
. 2 99, 304 (1932). “[W ]here the same act or

transac tion constitut es a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to dete rmine whe ther ther e are two offe nses or only one is whethe r ea ch provision require s proof of a

n additional fac t which the other does not .” Id. The Blockburge r test is the starting point in the analy sis of a multipl e-punishments double-jeopa rdy claim. Bi go n v . S tate , 252 S
. W.3d 360, 370 (Tex. C rim. App. 2008). “Under the Blockburge r te s t, tw o o f f e n s e s are not the
same if one require s proof of an element that the other doe s not.” Bigon , 252 S.W .3d at 370. The5

analy sis in Blockburge r is ba sed upon the fac e of the statute at issue. Blockburge r , 284 U.S. at 304. “B ut in Tex as, when r esolving whether two crimes a

re the same for

double-jeopa

rdy purposes, we focus on the eleme nts alleg ed in the cha rg ing instrument.” Bigon , 252 S.W .3d at 370, c iti ng Pa rri sh

v . S tate , 869 S.W .2d 352, 354 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). I n the pre s en t case , the two cha rg es pre sented in the indictment ea ch re quire proof of elements that the othe r does not. Clear ly , possession with intent to deliver requ i re s the proof of intent to deliver, and a

conviction for ma

nufac turing a contr olled subs t an ce requires proof of manufa cture
. Thus, under the Blockburge r test, there is no double-

jeopar dy violation. Le gis lat ive Int e nt “Application of Blockburge r does not se rve, howeve r, to ne g ate otherwise c lear ly expressed leg islative intent.” Vi lla nu e v a v . S tate , 227 S.W .3d 744, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I n the multipl e-punishments contex t, the Blockburge r test is no more than a r ule of statutory

construction, useful in deter

mining leg islative intent as to the scope of punishment where t h e i n t en t is not otherwise ma

nifested, a

nd does not operate t o “trump ‘c lear ly expressed leg islative intent.’” Ga rza
v . S tate , 213 S.W .3d 338, 351-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) , citing Ex parte Kopec ky , 821 S.W .2d 957, 9 5 9 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 2 )( qu o t i n g Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983)). I n Ex pa rteErv in , 991 S.W .2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) we addre ssed the issue of doubleje o p ar dy an d le g is lati v e in te n t, an d

w e “ la id o u t a n o n - e xc lu s iv e li s t o f

f a c to r s to c o n s id e r

w h en examining if two off

enses a re the same in the contex t of multiple punishment.” Bi go n v . S tate , 252 S.W .3d at 371. These fac tors included: 1) wh ether offe nses ar e in the same statutory section; 2) whether the offe nses ar e phra sed in the alter native; 3) whether the offe nses are named simil arly ; 4) whether the offe nses hav e common punis hment rang es; 5) whe ther the of fense s have a

common6

Id

. a t 5 6 1 . (C o c h ra n , J., jo ine d b y W o m a c k , J., c o n c u rr ing )( “I c o n c u r in the c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t, b u t I 1 res p ect f ul l y dis agree t hat a pe rs o n m ay b e p uni shed f o r bo t h m anuf

act uri ng and po ss ess i ng wi t h i nt ent t o de l i ver t he s ame s i ng l e c ach e of

met hamphet ami ne at one s peci f i c t i me. ”) focus; 6) w hether the common focus tends to indicate a sing le instance of conduc t; 7) whether the elements that differ betwee n the two offe nses can be considere d the same under an imputed theory of liability

that would result in the offe nses beingconsidere d the same unde r Blockbu r ger ; and 8) wh e the r t he re is l e g isl a tiv e his tor

y c on ta ini ngan a

rt ic ulatio n o f a

n inte nt t o tr e a t of

fe ns e s a s th e same for double-jeopa

rdy purposes. Id

. c iti ng Erv in , 991 S.W .2d at 814. We further explained that the
c o mm o n - f

o c u s f a c to r in c lu d e s w h e th e r th e g r a v a me n s o f th e o f f e n s e s ar e th e s a me . Er vin , 991 S.W .2d at 814. Guer rer o v. State I n Guerrero v . S

tate , we a pplied Blockburge r

and the Erv in fa c tor s w hil e a dd re ssi nga c los e ly analog ous double-jeopa

rdy case . Se e Gu e rre ro v . S

tate , 305 S.W .3d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Guer rer o was in poss ession of t hree batche s of m ethamphetamine in various st ag es of manufac ture. Id. at 547-48. Two of the batche s contained g reater than 4 g rams of me thamphetamine. Id. Guer rer o was c onvicted of both manuf actur in g an d p o s sessingwith intent to deliver methamphetamine, in qua ntities gre ater

than 4 g rams but le ss tha

n 200 g rams, under

T EX A S H E AL TH
AND S AF ETY C ODE § 481.112. Id. Gu e rr e ro so ug ht r e vie w o n d ou ble -j e op ard

y g ro un ds and

c on te nd e d th a t th e le g isl a tur e did not intend for multipl e convictions and punishments for his actions. Id. We i ssu e d s pli t op ini on s. A four- judge plurality held that Guer rer o’s conviction for manuf actur ing a nd possessing w ith intent to deliver the same cache of methamphetamine did not violate t he Double Jeopardy Clause. Id. at 553-54, 557, 560-61. B ut a majority , co m p ri sed of two c oncurr ing judg es and thre e dissenting 17

Id

. at 567 ( H ol com b, J. , j oi ned by M ey er s an d Johns on, JJ. , di s s ent i ng ) ( “ [ T ] he Legi s l at ur e i nt ended t hat 2 t he m anuf

act ure of a s i ngl e q uant i t y of m et ham p het am i ne and t he si m ul t aneo us p o ss ess i o n of t hat m et ham p het am i ne wi t h i n t en t t o de l i v er i t t o s omeon e el s e wou l d c on s t i t u t e bu t on e v i ol at i on of § 481. 112( a) , f

or w h i ch t h er e cou l d be but one c onvi ct i on an d one puni s hment

. ”) judge s, noted that t h e l egislature did not intend multiple punishments for manufa cture and

2 simult aneous posse s s i o n with intent to deliver with respe ct to a sing le quantity of controlled
s u b s ta nces. Id. at 563-64, 567 (Coc hran, J., concurr ing; Holc omb, J ., dissenting) . Howeve r, the
c on c ur ri ngjud g e s n ote d th a t G ue rr e ro ha d e ngaged in m or e tha n o ne dis tin c t a c t by

se pa rate ly producingthree distinct batches of me thamphetamine. Id. at 561. Two o f t h e b at ch es were of a
su ff ic ie nt a mou nt t o s us ta in s e pa

rate c on vic tio ns fo r m anu fa c turi ng or po sse ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o deliver at the char g ed we ight. The ref ore, the concur

renc e agree d with the plurality that there was
n o v i o l a t i o no f

d o u b l e j e o p ar dy in t

ha t c as e . Id. “Two distinct acts e qual two violations of section 481.112 of the Texas H ealth and Safety Code, but one act (simultaneous manufa cture and possession with intent to deliver) evide nced by one bottle seized at one time equals only one violation of that section.” Id. Th e fi ve c on c ur

ri ng and dis se nti ng jud g e s re lie d on our e arl ie r an a ly sis of the same statut e in Lop e z v . S tate , 108 S.W .3d 293, 297 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Id. at 563-64. In Lopez , we noted that manufa cturing , possessing w ith intent to deliver, and deliver ing w ere all p o i n t s along the spectrum of

the offe nse of dr

ug traff icking

. Lop e

z v . S tate , 108 S.W .3d at 299-300. Fur ther, in light
o f t h e f ac tt h at t h e l egi s l at u re en u m er at edd i ff er i n g p u n i s h m en t s b as eds o l el y o nt h e q u an t i t y

o f d ru gs discovere d, the g rava

men of the statute se ems to be on the qua ntity of drug s as opposed to the ty pe of ac tion taken. Id. Th e re fo re , we c on c lud e d that the statut e e sta bli sh e d alt e rn a tiv e wa

y s to c omm it

a single offe nse of “distribution of dang erous drug s in our society” and was desig n ed t o al l ow prosec ution reg ardle ss of wher e on the c ontinuum the perpetra tor is caug ht. Id.8 Conclusion Th e pr e se nt c a se is dis tin g uis he d f ro m Gu e rre ro in that, unlike Guerr ero’ s indictment for manufa cture andp o s s es s i o ni n v o l v i n g t h re e d i s t i n ct b at ch es o f m et h am p h et am i n e, t h i s appellant wa s
c ha rg e d a nd c on vic te d b a se d o n th e manu fa c tur e and simult ane ou s poss e ssi on of a sin g le qu anti ty
o f me th a mp h e ta

mi n e . I na c c o r d an c e w it ho u r an a ly s is o f

th e s tatute in Lopez , we hold that the leg islature intended that T EX A S H EA L TH AND S AF ETY C ODE § 481.112 establishes alter native mea

ns of punis hin g an off

e ns e in the c on tin

uum of dr ugdis tr ibutio n. Ma

nu fa c tur ingand

po sse ssi on

wi th int e nt t o d e liv e r b oth

c re a te the sin g ula

r d ang e r t hat c ontr oll e d s ub sta

nc e s w ill be dis tr ibute d to
so c ie ty . T he re fo re , a

sin g le a c t (sim

ult ane ou s man

uf a c tur e and

re su lti ngpo sse ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o deliver) with respec t to a single quantity of controlled substance s constitutes a single violation of T EX A S H EA L TH AND S AF ETY C ODE § 481.112. Whil e on e c ann ot manu fa c tur e me tha mph e tamin e wi tho ut simult ane ou sly po sse ssi ng it, thi s is not true of deliver

y of that same sing le quantity of methamphe tamine; one ca n possess without delivering . We reiterate that our holding s here and in Guerrero do not bar a prosec ution for deliver

y of a c ontrolled substance if a pe rson who manuf actur es (a nd there by

possesses) a q u antity

of a controlled substanc e later delivers that same quantity to a thi rd party

. A l ater sale of that substance to a th ir d p arty w o u ld b e a s e c o n d d is ti n c t a c t, a

s e p ar a te v io lati o no f

th e s tatute , an d

a b a s is f o r a second punishment. See B lockburge r , 284 U.S. at 301-02. Appellant’s c onvictions for bot h the m anufa cture and simultaneous possession with intent to d e li v e r o f a s in g le c o n ta in e r

o f me th a mp h e ta

mi n e v io late d

th e D o u b le J eopar dy

Cl a u s e . We
a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he c ourt of a pp e a ls.
Deliver ed: J une 30, 2010 Pub lis h