See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 4 9.08 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 07 ). 1
S e e id

. § 2 2.02 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 07 ). 2 

### NUM BER 13-07- 359- CR



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
SCO TTH EL GER SON , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 47t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z Appel lan t, Scot t H elg erson, pl ead e d gu il ty to thr ee c ounts of int ox ic ati on mansl aug hter and one c ount of ag g ra v ated ass aul t. A jur y as ses sed puni shmentat 1 2A f our t h cou nt , f or i nt oxi cat i on a ssaul t , was ab andon ed b y t he St at e. 3 Apprendi

v. N ew Jer

sey , 530 U

. S. 466 , 490 ( 2000) ( hol di ng t hat “ ot her t han t he f act of a pr i or 4 conv i ct i on, any f act t hat i ncr eases t he p enal t y f or a cr i m e be y ond t he p r escr i bed st at ut or y m axi m um m ust be su bm i t t ed t o t he j ury an d p rove d b ey on d a reas on ab l e d ou bt” ).

See R ing v. Ar

i z ona , 5 3 6 U .S . 5 8 4 (2 0 0 2 ); Bl akel y v. W ashi

ngt on , 54 2 U

. S

. 29 6 (20 04 ). 5 2 tw enty y ears’ i mpri sonmentand a $10, 000 fine on eac h c ount. The t ri al cour t order ed th at the sente nces in counts one through three be serv ed co nsecu tiv ely, and that the sen ten ce in t h e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t c o u n t b e s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e o t h e r t h r e e c o u n t s. By 3 fiv e i ss ue s , a p p ell ant c hal len g es the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on to cu mulat e hi s s entenc es (i ss ues one t hr oug h four) and it s re fusal to all ow him to dis cus s the cons ecut iv e sent enci ng st atute atv oi r d i r e ( i s s ue fi v e)

. W e affi r m. I. Background In Decem ber 200 7, app ellant , the n nine tee n, w as intoxicated when he int ent iona lly
ra n a s top s ig n and col li ded w it h the v ic ti ms’ v ehi cl e. As a r esul t of the acc ide nt, thr ee fam ily mem bers (ten -y ear-old b rothe r an d sister t w ins and t heir tw ent y -four-year-old sister) die d. Anothe r si bli ng w as inj ur ed i n the ac ci dent.

II. C on st it ut io nal C hal len ges to C on secu ti v e Sen te nci ng St at ut e By hi s first issue, appe ll ant c ontends hi s S ixth A mendment r ig ht t o a j ur y w as
v iol ated by

the jud g e c umulat ing hi s s entenc es. Appel lan t arg ues that base d on the U nit ed Stat es Supr eme C our

t’ s d eci si on i n Appr

endi v. New Jer

sey and subs eq uent cas es, he 4 5 is enti tl ed to hav e the j ur y dec ide w h ether

hi s t hr ee s entenc es for i ntox ic ati on mansl aug hter

sh oul d be ser

v ed c onsec uti v ely

. By

hi s s econd i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends the Tex as cons ecut iv e s entenc ing sc heme i s s o “ ar bit ra ry and capr ic iou s” that itv iol atesL u q u is v . S ta te , 7 2 S .W .3 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); Ex part e G r anvi el , 561 S. W

. 2d 5 03, 6 5 1 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 8 ).

L u q u is , 72 S. W

. 3d a t 365 ; G r anvi el , 5 6 1 S .W .2 d a t 5 1 1 ; E x p a rte P o rts , 21 S. W

. 3d 4 44, 446 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –S an A nton i o 2 00 0, pe t

. ref' d).

S e e B a rro w v . S ta te , 20 7 S

. W

. 3d 37 7, 37 9-8 0 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 06 ). 8 3 his r ig ht t o due pr oces s u nder the federal and sta te c onst it uti o n s. In h is third i ss ue, appel lan t contend s his rig ht t o be free of doubl e j eopardy w as v iol ated. I n hi s four th i ss ue, appel lan t c ontends the cons ecut iv e s entenc ing sta tute v iol ates hi s r ig ht t o eq ual protec ti on under the federal co nst it uti on. The Stat e r espon ds that all of appel lant’ s consti tuti onal ch all eng es to t he
cons ecut iv e s entenc ing st atute hav e been re jec ted b y

Tex as cour

ts. W e ag re e. A
. St and ard o f Rev iew W hen r e vie w ing an atta ck on the constitu tiona lity of a statu te, th e ap pellat e cou rt beg ins w it h a pr esumpt ion that the sta tute is v ali d and the leg is lat ur e has not act ed
unr eason abl y

or a rb it ra ri ly

. This pr esumpt ion r emains unti l the p arty ch all eng ing the 6
s t a t u t e ca rr ie s it s b u rd e n t o e s t a b li s h it s u n c o n s t it u t io n a li t y. 7

1. Ri gh t to Ju ry

T rial an d Du e Pr oces s I n Bar ro w v. State , t he c our

t of cri minal appeals rej ect ed s ev er al of the arg uments appel lan t rais es in the i nst ant c ase. The Ba r r ow cour t hel d tha t t he App rend

i li ne of cas es 8 doe s not “spe ak to a trial cou rt’s autho rity to cum ulate sente nces when tha t aut hority i s provi d e d b y statu te an d is not ba sed u pon discrete f act-f inding, bu t is w hollyId

. a t 3 7 9 ; s e e A l a m e d a v . S ta te , 235 S. W

. 3d 2 18, 224 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 7) ( not i ng “ t he 9 A p p re n d i l i n e o f c a s e s d o e s n o t a p p l y to a tri a l c o u rt’ s d e c i s i o n to c u m u l a te ju ry-i m p o s e d s e n te n c e s ”)

.

Id

. at 380

. 10
S e e i d

. a t 3 8 2 (“W e d o n o t b e l i e v e th a t t h e l e g i s l a ti v e l y e n d o w e d , n o rm a ti v e d e c i s i o n w h e th e r to 11 cum ul at e sen t ences exceeds t hat l ev el of di scr et i on t hat t he Supr em e Cour t has al way s r ecogni z ed a s c on s i s t en t w i t h d ue proc es s
. ”)

.

P h i lli p s v . S ta te , 7 8 7 S .W .2 d 3 9 1 , 3 9 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ). 12
E x p a rte R a th m e ll , 717 S. W

. 2d 3 3, 35 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 198 6) . 13
Philli ps , 787 S. W

. 2d a t 394

. 14 4 dis cr eti onar

y .” Thus , t he c our

t hel d tha t t he c umulat iv e s entenc ing st atute “ does not 9
v iol ate t he Si x th A mendment r ig ht t o a j ur y tr ial .” The cour

t al so re jec ted t he arg ument 10 that the sta tutor

y sc heme, w hic h per mits a tr ial cour t to deci de w hether to cumulat e
s e n t e n c e s , vio la t e s a n a p p e ll a n t ’s r ig h tt o d u e p ro c e s s
. W e o ve rr u le a p p e ll a n t ’s f ir s ttwo 11 issues. 2. Double Jeopar dy In hi s t hird i ss ue, a ppel lan t c ontends hi s r ig ht t o be f re e o f d o u b le je opardy

w as
v iol ated. T he p rotect ion against dou ble jeo pard y doe s not app ly w here sepa rate and distin ct off enses oc cur

dur ing the same t ra nsac ti on. I n Ex parte Rathmell , t he c our t of cr imi nal 12 app eals held that in prosecu tions f or inv olun tary ma nslau ghter inv olvi ng multiple dea ths, each ind iv idu al death cons ti tutes a c omplet e and dis ti nctoff ense. The cour t of cr imi nal 13 appeal s h as “c onsi ste ntl y hel d defendants, w hil e oper ati ng a motor v ehi cl e and commi tti ng an unl awful ac t, maybe c onv ic ted for eac h person inj ur ed and/or murde re d, in v iol ati on of a single statut e.” The dou ble jeo pard y clause, therefore, do es no t bar mu ltiple 14R a th m e ll , 7 1 7 S .W .2 d a t 3 6

. 15
P a p k e v . S ta te , 982 S. W

. 2d 4 64, 466 ( T ex. App. –Aust i n 19 98, pet

. r ef ’ d, unt i m el y f i l ed) ( ci t i ng 16 C i t y of C l ebur ne, Tex. v. C l ebur

ne L i ving Cent er , 47 3 U

. S

. 43 2, 44 0 (19 85 ))

.

S e e i d

. 17
S e e i d .; s e e a l s o P e re z v . S ta te , N os. 04- 01- 00552
- C R , 04- 01- 00553
- C R , 200 3 T ex. App. 18 LEX I S 806, at * 9 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o Jan

. 29, 200 3, pet

. r ef ’ d) ( m em
. op. ) ( f ol l owi ng P ap k e). 5 c on v i c ti on s i n s i tu at i on s w he r e s epa rate and d i s ti nc t offen s es o c c ur d ur i ng t he s am e tr ansac ti on. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue.

15 3. Equal Protec tion By hi s four

th is su e , app ell ant c ontends thatthe sta tutor y sc heme per mitt ing
cum ulative sente ncing for intoxication mansla ughter and into x ication assau lt, in contra st to ot her cr imi nal off enses , v iol ates hi s r ig ht t o eq ual protec ti on. W e di sag re e. “U nder the Eq ual Protec ti on Cl ause, w hen a cl ass ific ati on does not impl ic ate a f und am ent al rig ht, o r place a bu rden on a susp ect class of person s, the prope r standa rd of rev iew is to det ermin e w het her the re is a ration al basis for the d if feren t treatm ent , w hich is to say , w hether

the cl ass ific ati on bears a r ati onal r ela ti onshi p to a l eg itimat e s tate int er est .” The A ust in Cou rtof Appeal s h as re jec ted t he c lai m thatthe exemption of 16 int o xica tion mans lau g hter under se cti on 3. 03( b) of the p enal co de v iol ates the ri g ht t o eq ual protec ti on. W e ag re e w it h the r eason ing of our siste r co u rt s i n Aus ti n and San 17 Ant onio ; w e ho ld tha t the st atu te be ars a rationa l relationsh ip to a legitimat e stat e inte rest and does not v iol ate the equ al protec ti on clau se. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s four th i ss ue. 18 III
. Li mit at io n of

Vo ir Di re By his f if th i ssue, app ellant cont end s the trial court erred w hen it ref used to perm itBar row , 2 0 7 S .W .3 d a t 3 8 1 -8 2 (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). 19
S e e E s tra d a v . S ta te , N os. 05- 06- 00394
- C R , 05- 06- 00395
- C R , 200 7 T ex. App. LEX I S 3892, at 20 *9 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). 6 his coun sel to discuss th e con secut iv e sen ten cing statute to the v oir dire pane l. Duri ng v oir dire, i n q uest ion ing the panel r eg ar din g the full ra ng e of puni shment , defense co unsel
ex pla ine d that a sent ence in ex ces s o f ten y ears c oul d not be p ro bated. I n r espon se to a q uest ion , he noted that the t en y ears w as “pe r coun t,” bec ause ther e w er e “ thr ee s epar ate count s.” A pr ospec ti v e j ur or as ked, “ Is that conc ur re nt?” The Stat e obj ect ed, and t he tr ial
cour t s ust ain ed th e obj ect ion

. Appel lan t arg ues that the l imi tati on on d i s c u s s i n g t h e c o n s e c u t i v e s entenc ing st atute “i mpeded [his ] v oir

dir e and int ell ig ent use of his st ri kes .” Ac cordin g to appel lan t, the e rror “auto ma tically

estab lishes ha rm an d is not subject to a h arm a nalysis.” W e ar e unpersuade d by appel lan t’ s a rg ument. In B a r r ow , th e c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s n oted: The Leg is lat ur e w as not req uired to p ro v ide the opti on to cu mulat e sent ences at all

. That t he Leg is lat ur e di d s o prov ide , butthen r eser v ed th e cumul ati on as pectof puni shment for the judge rather tha n the jury , does no t chan ge its essentially norm ative, non -fact-bo und characte r.

. . . .

. . . The Leg is lat ur e has ch arg ed th e tr ial co urt w it h the deter minat ion of w hether

to cumul ate and the tr ial co urt i s fr ee to make thi s d eter minat ion s o lo n g a s t h e in d ivi d u a l s e n t e n c e s a re n o te le va t e d b e yo n d t h e ir re s p e c t ive statu tory ma x imu ms. 19 W e also no te th at th e Dallas Court of Appe als recent ly

foun d t h a t a trial court did not err i n de nying an ap pellan t’s request to instruct the jury tha t the trial court could cumul a t e h i s s e n t e n c e s
. Th e c o u rt n o t e d t h a t “ [ w ] h e t h e r mu l t i p l e s e n t e n c e s r un 20Id

. 21 7 conc ur re ntl y or cons ecut iv ely is a matter left to the tr ial cour t’ s dis cr eti on,” and w a s t h us “not a m atte r that th e trial co urt w as required to subm it t o the jury .” W e ho ld tha t beca use 21 the l eg is lat ur e has charg ed the t ri al cour t—n ot t he j ur

y —w it h the dete rmi nati on of w hether to cum ulate sente nces, the trial co urt did not e rr in den y ing appe llant’s request to discuss the cumu lative senten cing statute w ith the jury pan el on voir dire. W e overrule appe llant’s fifth is sue. IV. Conclusion W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 28t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.