### NUM BER 13-05- 658- 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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
EL IJA H HU FF , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt of 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 em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, El ij ah H uff , app eal s from the tr ia l cour t' s d eni al of his peti ti on for pr ec o n v i c t i o n w r i t o f h a b e as c o r p u s b a s e d u p o n d o u b l e j e o p a rd y . B y a s i n g l e i s s u e , H u ff
arg ues the Doubl e J eopardy C lau se of the F ifth A mendment t o the U nit ed St ates C o n s t i t u t i o n b a rs t h e S t a t e f ro m p ro s e c u t i n g h i m fo r t h r e e c o u n t s o f

c a p i t a l m u rd e r
. W e affi r m.See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 19. 03. 1 See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 71. 02. 2 In a ju ry tria l , j e o p a rd y a tta c h e s w h e n th e ju ry i s i m p a n e l e d a n d s w o rn
. C r ist v. Bretz , 437 U

. S. 28, 3 3 8 (1 9 7 8 ); A l v a re z v . S ta te , 8 6 4 S .W .2 d 6 4 , 6 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ). 2 A. P ro cedural Back g ro und T his ca se conc er ns Huff’s prosec uti on for the murders o f IsaacM ald onado a nd Jenna Pat ek, al leg ed to hav e oc cur re d on Januar y 13, 2004. H uff

w as charg ed i n a fiv ecounti ndi ctmentw it h c api tal murder ( Cou nts 1- 3) and eng ag ing i n org ani z ed c ri minal 1 act iv it y ( Cou nts 4 an d 5) . On Aug ust23, 2005, Huff w ent t o tr ial onl y on C ounts 4 an d 5 2 in th e 11 7 th Dist ric t Co u rtof Nu e ce s Co u n ty, Ju d ge J o a qui n Vil la rre a l, I II , th e n pre sid in g. After a j ur

y w as sel ect ed, i mpanel ed, a nd s w or n, one of Huff ’s defense attor ney s, Juan 3 Gonz ale z , c omplai ned t hat o ne of the sw or n j urors, Da nie l Ray Roberson, used profanity to w ards h i m. On A ug ust24, 2005, Judg e Vi ll ar re al, outs id e t h e j ur y ’s presenc e, he ld a hear ing on th e matt er

dur ing w hic h the prosec utor , James Sal es, cal led tw o w it ness es, R oberson and G onz ale z . Sal es’ s i nter ro g ati on of R oberson show ed, i n rele v ant p art: Q: M r. R oberson, it w as broug ht t o the att enti on of the Cou rtthaty ou may hav e address ed profanit y tow ards one of

the members of

defense couns el thi s mor n ing on y our

w ay i n. And I need to k now i f ther e i s a nythi ng -- that y ou’re f eeling anything against eithe r t h e d e fense or the stat e tha t w ould pr ev ent y ou from b ein g a fair and impar

ti al juror i n thi s c ase? A: No, I didn ’t--I didn’t say a n yt h in g to th e an y one [sic] fro m th e de fense couns el thi s mor nin g
. I di dn’ t t alk to any one .
. . . * * * I’ll do my best to be fair and im partia l. Af ter Robe rson f inished testi fying, Sales question ed Go nzalez , w ho te stif ied, in relevant part, as follows:3

Q: C an y ou, p lea se, for t he record, de sc ri be th e nat ur e of the inv olv ement b e twe e n Mr

. Ro b e rs o n a n d yo u rs e lf p ri o r t o co m in g i n t o co u rtt o d a y? A: I w as sta ndi ng r ig ht be hin d y ou- -o r ri g ht by the Bar

. He w alk ed i n, l ooked at me, and I hea rd “ G[- -] damn i t.” * * * Q: And w hen he [M r. R obe rso n ] to o k [the] st and and sa id he di dn’ t- -s aid , und er oath , he didn’t say anything towards y ou, tha t’s eithe r a mistake or a li e. A: Mi sta ke or

a l ie. I made s ome-- ey e c ontac t w it h hi m and I heard the w ords, “ G[- -] damn i t.” After q uest ion ing Gonz ale z , Sa les tol d the tr ial co urt: I’ m not g oin g to mov e for a moti on for mis tr ial , but , as an o ff ic er of the c our

t, I’m bringing it to th e Court’s att ent ion an d asking the Cou rt to c o n sider a mis tr ial , bas ed on the t est imony of Mr . G onz ale zof thi s part ic ula r juror w ho just pe r j ured hi ms el f i n fr on t of th e C ou rt; an d th erefo r e, I th i nk th at w ould pr eju dic e M r. Huff

in goi ng for

w ard in this parti cul ar

tri al . . .

. [I] t w oul d s eem to me that a mi str ial w oul d be the a ppropr iat e ac ti on atthi s p oin t i n ti me, base d on the te stimo ny of Mr. Gon z alez an d the testim ony of the juror. I just put t hat for

w ard to the c our

t. Hu f f ’s othe r attorne y , Richard Rogers, object ed to the sta te’s request for mistrial. In respon se, Sal es tol d the court : “I think , ov er all , that mist ri al w oul d be appropr iat e, an d
w e c oul d redo i t i n three w eeks .” Rog ers ag ain obj ect ed to t he s tate’ s req uest , but , des pit e his obj ect ion s, Judg e Vi ll ar re al g ra nted the mi str ial

. On A ug ust31, 2005, Huff f il ed a spec ia l p le a of doubl e j eopardy peti ti on for pr econv ic ti on w ri t of

habeas co rp us in w hic h he arg ued t hat t he D oubl e J eopardy C lau se of the F ifth Am e n d m e n t to the Uni ted S tates C onst it uti on prohi bit ed th e St ate from furthe r p ro se cu ti n g th is c a u se . On Se p te m b e r 16 , 2 0 0 5 , J u d ge S a n d ra W a tt s, Pre sid in g Ju d ge of the 117t h D is tr ic t C our t, hel d a h ear ing on t he s peci al ple a. After re cei v ing ev ide nce and hea ring argume nt, Ju dge W atts signed an orde r: ( 1) den y ing the specia l plea o f dou bleW e no t e t hat a pr e- t r i al wr i t of hab eas co r pus i s usua l l y t he p r ocedur al vehi cl e by whi ch a def endan t 4 s h o u l d ra i s e a “s u c c e s s i v e p ro s e c u ti o n s fo r t h e s a m e o ff e n s e ” d o u b l e je o p a rd y c l a i m
. G onz al es v. St at e, 8 S. W

. 3d 640, 643 n. 9 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 2000) ( ci t i ng Ex part e Robinson, 6 4 1 S .W .2 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 3
- 5 6 ( T e x . C r im

. A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) )

. R e q u ir in g a d e f e n d a n t t o g o th r o u g h tr ia l b e f o r e a p p e a lin g a s u c c e s s iv e p r o s e c u tio n s c la im is i nconsi st ent wi t h t he d oubl e- j eopar dy gua r ant ee a gai nst t he St at e con s ec uti vel y t r y i ng h i m f or t he sa m e o ff e n s e
. Id

. T he s e c on s i de rat i on s d o no t a pp l y to a m ul t i pl e-p un i s hm en t s c l ai m b ec au s e t he revi ew i ng co urt c a n fu l l y vin d i c a te th e c l a i m o n a p p e a l fo l l o w i n g f i n a l ju d g m e n t. I d. T he co ur t of cr i m i nal app eal s has, h o w e v e r, a d d re s s e d d o u b l e -je o p a rd y c l a i m s i n p o s t-tria l a p p l i c a ti o n s fo r w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s
. S e e Ex p a rte H er ron, 790 S. W

. 2d 6 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 199 0) ( addr essi ng doubl e- j eopar dy cl ai m ar i si ng f r om conv i ct i on a n d p u n i s h m e n t fo r b o th a g g ra v a te d k i d n a p i n g a n d a g g ra v a te d ro b b e ry i n th e s a m e tri a l ); Ex part e Jef f er son , 681 S. W

. 2d 3 3 ( T ex. C r i m
. A pp. 198 4) ( addr essi ng d oubl e- j eopar dy cl ai m ar i si ng f r om successi v e con v i ct i ons for un au t ho ri z ed us e o f a veh i c l e a nd t he ft of t he sa m e ve hi c l e).

4 jeo pardy co ncer nin g Cou nts 1- 3, capi tal murder ; and ( 2) di smi ss ing , w it h preju dic e, C ounts 4 and 5, en g ag ing i n org ani z ed c ri minal ac ti v ity . This appeal foll ow ed. 4 B. D is cus si on By hi s s ole i ss ue, H uff

arg u e s that Co unts 1- 3, c api tal murder , are bar re d from f u rt h e r p ro s e c u t io n b e c a u s e t h e a ll e ga t io n s o f e n ga gi n g i n o rg a n iz e d cr im in a l a c t ivi t y, Cou nts 4 a n d 5 , re su lting i n the tw o v ic ti ms’ deat hs, and the a ll eg ati ons of caus ing the deaths by capi tal murde r, inv olv e the sa me el ements

. The in dic tment all eg ed, i n rele v ant p a rt , t h a tH u ff: [C ount 1] di d the n and there, i n the sa me transac tion, i ntent ion all y and know ing ly

ca use[ d] t he deat h of tw o i ndi v idu als , namel y , I SAAC MALDONADO an d JENNA PAT EK, b y shoo ting each wi th a FIREA RM [Coun t 2] did th en a nd th ere, intentio nally cause [d] the death of an ind iv idua l, ISAA C MA LDO NA DO , by SH OOTIN G H IM W ITH A F IR EAR M w hil e i n the cour s e o f

comm itting or attem pting to com mit BURGL ARY OF A HA BITATION [Coun t 3] did th en a nd there, intent iona lly cause [d] the death of an individual, JENNA PAT EK, b y SHOOT ING HER W IT H A FIREARM w hile in the course of commit ti ng or

att empti ng to commi t BU RG LARYOF A H ABITATION [C ount 4] di d then and there, as a member of a c ombina ti on, c ommit[ ted] the offen s e of m urde r

b y s ho ot i ng I SA

AC M AL D ON AD O w i th a fi r ea r m5

[C ount 5] di d the n and there, as a member of a combi nati on, c ommit[ ted] the off ense of murder

by sh ooti ng JE NN A PA TEK, w it h a firear m . .
. . The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appeal s has “c onsi ste ntl y hel d

. . . t hat t he Tex as and Uni ted S tates C onst it uti ons’ doubl e j eopardy prov is ion s p ro v ide su bsta n tiall y i denti cal prote ctions. ” Ex parte Mitchell , 977 S.W .2d 575 , 580 (Tex. Cr im. App

. 199 7). Th e Doub le Jeopa rd y

C lau se of t he Fi fth Amendment, appl ic abl e to the s tates throug h the F our teent h Am end me nt, p rov ides that no perso n “shall . . . be subject for the sa me of fense to be twice put i n j eopa rd y o f

l if e o r limb .

. . . ” U .S. C ON ST
. am end s. V and XIV. Th e Doub le Je o p a rd y Cl ause protec ts ag ain st a s econd prosec uti on for the s ame offense after acquittal, a secon d prose cution for t h e same of fense af ter conviction, an d mu ltiple puni shment s for

the same o ff ense. Brow n v. Ohio , 431 U .S. 161 , 1 6 5 ( 1977) ; Ex par te Cav azos , 203 S.W .3d 333 , 336 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06). The tes t of w hether

tw o of fenses cons ti tute the same cr ime w as announc ed by the Uni ted S tates Supreme C our t i n Block

bur ger v. U nited St ates , 284 U.S. 299, 30 4 (193 2). Ephr aim v. Sta te , 237 S.W .3d 438, 440 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2007, no pet .)

. Block bur ger provides: “The app licable rule is thatw here the sam e a ct or transact ion con stitute s a
v iol ati on of tw o di sti nctst atuto ry prov is ion s, the t estto be appl ied to dete rm in e w hether there are tw o offenses or onl y one, is w hether

eac h prov is ion req uires proof of an add itiona l fa ct w hich t h e o t h e r d o e s not . . . .” Block bur ger , 284 U .S. at 30 4. In ot her
w ords, “[f

]or the purpo se of

dete rmining w het her do uble jeopa rdyapp lies, tw o of fense s are consid ered the sam e if one of the of fense s cont ains all the elem ent s of the ot her; th ey are
n o t t h e sa me if ea ch of fense has a un ique elem ent .” Ephr aim , 237 S. W .3d a t 440 ; see als o Or tega v. State , 171 S.W .3d 895 , 899 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05). T he a pplicab le rule isBef or e 19 82, T exas was " al one" i n i t s i nt er pr et at i on o f t he "do ub l e" j eopar dy pr ohi bi t i on, f ol l owi ng 5 what was cal l ed t he d oct r i ne o fcar v i ng. U nder i t , t he St at e cou l d car v e on l y o ne p ros ec uti on out of one
“ t r ansact i on” gi v i ng r i se t o t he o ff ense. T ha t i nt er pr et at i on was ov er r ul ed a nd a bando ned i n E x p a rte M cW i lliam s, 634 S. W

. 2d 8 15 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 198 2) , whi ch con t ai ns a det ai l ed d i s c us s i on oft he v ar i ous e l e m e n ts o f th e d o c tri n e o f c a rv i n g a n d th e ra ti o n a l e fo r h a v i n g a b a n d o n e d i t.
6 th at w hen “the sam e act or tran saction constitu tes a violation of tw o distinctstatu tory prov is ion s, the t estto be appl ied to deter mine w hether there are tw o offenses or onl y one is wh e th e r e ach prov is ion req uires proof of an addi ti onal fact w hic h the othe r does not.” Eph raim , 2 3 7 S. W .3 d at44 0 (cit in g State v . R em si ng, 8 29 S.W .2d 4 00 (Te x . App .–A ustin 199 2, pe t. ref 'd)). 5

C. W het her the Of fense of Engaging in Organiz ed Crimina l Activ ity is a Separa te Of

fense S e c t io n 7 1

. 0 2 o f

t h e T e xa s P e n a l C o d e , E n ga gi n g i n O rg a n ize d Cr im in a l A c t ivi t y, prov ide s, in re lev ant p art: (a ) A person commi ts an offense i f, w it h the i ntentto est abl is h, mai ntai n, or par ti ci pate in a c ombina ti on or i n the profits of a combi nati on or as a member of a cri minal str eet g ang , he commi ts or conspi re s t o c ommit one or mor e of th e fo llo wing: (1 ) m u r d e r, ca p it a l m u rd e r, a rs o n , a ggr a va t e d ro b b e ry, ro b b e ry, burg lar y , t heft, ag g ra v ated kidnap pin g , k idn appi ng , ag g ra v ated ass aul t, aggravated se x ual assa ult, sexual assau lt, forgery , dea dly cond uct, a ssault puni shabl e as a C las s A mis demeanor , burg lary o f a mot or

v ehi cl e, or unautho ri z ed us e of a motor v ehi cl e; .
. . . T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 71.02( a) (1 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. The g eneral ru le “i s t hat g re ater inclusive and l e s s e r includ ed o f fense s are the same for jeopa rdypurpo ses.” Parrish v. State, 869 S.W .2d 352, 354 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1994) (c it in g Br own, 432 U.S. at 16 9). How ev er , t he Tex as Leg is lat ur e has ex pr ess ed i ts intent to au thor iz e c onv ic ti on andI n U ni t ed St at es v. Feli x, 503 U

. S. 378 ( 1992) , t he Cour t was f aced wi t h a pr osecut i on f or cr i m i nal 6 c o n s p i ra c y a fte r th e d e fe n d a n t h a d a l re a d y b e e n c o n v i c te d i n a p re v i o u s tri a l fo r s o m e o f th e s a m e p re d i c a te ac t s
. T he C ou rt s t ated t ha t “t he rul e” i s “t ha t a su bs t an t i ve cri m e an d a c on s pi rac y t o c om m i t t ha t cri m e a re no t t he ‘ s am e o ffen c e’ [ s i c ] for do ub l e jeo pa rdy pu rpo s es
. ” Id

. at 389

. 7 puni shmentfor b oth e ng ag ing i n org ani z ed c rim in a l act iv ity and any

of the u nder ly ing off enses l is ted i n s ect ion 71.0 2. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 71.03( 3) ( Ver non 200 3) ( “I t is no d efense to prosec uti on unde r Sect ion 71.0 2 tha t:

. . . ( 3) a pe rs on has been charg ed
w ith, acquitted , or co nvicted of any off ense listed in Sub section (a) of Se ction 7 1.0 2 . . . .”). I n Gar re tt v. United S tates , t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t s tated that “[ I]tdoes not v iol ate t he D oubl e J eopardy C lau se
. . . to prosec ute [ a c onti nui ng cr imi nal ente rp ri se] off ense after a pr ior

co nv ic ti on for one of the pr edi cat e offenses .” 471 U .S. 773, 793 (1 985 ). I n United

State s v. Felix , t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t s tated that “[ C] onspi ra cy

to commi t an off ense and t he offense i tse lf

. . . a re se parate o ff enses for dou ble jeo pard y

purpo ses.” 503 U.S. 378 , 390 -91 (199 2). 6 The Ty ler

C our t of Appea ls has si mil ar ly co ncl uded t hat: [E]n g ag ing i n org ani z ed c rim in a l a ctiv ity i s t o be treated li ke cons piracy for doubl e j eopardy

pur poses , and the Dou ble Je opardy C lau se does not b ar suc ces si v e prosec uti ons for a subs tanti ve off ense and for cons piracy to commi t t hat o ff ense, ev en w her e the State prov es the same conduc t i n bot h prosec uti ons, and ev en w her e the prev iou sl y prosec uted condu ct cons ti tutes an ov ert ac t i n the co nspi ra cy prosec uti on. Mc Gee v . St ate, 90 9 S. W .2 d 51 6 , 5 1 9 (T e x. Ap p .– T yler 19 9 5 , p e t. re f 'd ) (ci ti n g Lind ley v. State, 855 S.W .2d 729, 730 (Tex . App.–Ty ler 1993, no p et.) and Felix , 503 U .S. at 390- 91). Atle as t t hree oth er Tex as a pp el l at e c ou rts h av e he l d th ata p ros ec ut i on for a c r i me do es n otp roh i bi t a c on te mp oran eo us o r s ub s eq ue ntp ros ec ut i on for c om mi tt i ng t ha t c r i me
as par t of a c ri minal co mbinat ion u n d e r se ct ion 71.02 (a ) of the Tex as Penal C ode. In8

Rei na v . St ate, 940 S. W .2d 770 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1997, pet. ref'd) , t he defendant appeal ed hi s s imul taneous co nv ic ti ons for bot h att empted murderand a c ri minal combi nati on ( of w hic h the p re dic ate a cti v ity w as attempt ed murder ), tw o s eparate o ff enses charg ed i n the sa me i ndi ctment

. Id. at 771- 72. Base d upon sec ti on 71. 03( 3) , t he Rei na court he ld “the simu ltane ous p rosecu tion o f Reina for a ttem pte d mu rder and engaging in
org ani z ed c rim in al act iv it y di d notv iol ate t he doub le jeo pardy prov is ion s o f eithe r the fede ral or state con stitutio n.” Id. at 776. In an atta ck on the facial v alidity of section 71.0 2 un der con stitutio nal law, the Fort W orth C our

t of Appea ls al so deter mined that the Tex as Leg is lat ur e, i n e nact ing se cti on 71 .0 3 of th e Tex as Pen al Co de , i nt en de d “ to i mp os e c um ul at i v e s en te nc es for t he s am e cond uct w het her the same are me rg ed o f fense s or prosecut ed se para tely.” Crum pto n v. State, 977 S.W .2d 7 63, 7 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 1998, no pet.)

. Thoug h Cr um pton inv olv ed onl y

a prosec uti on unde r sec ti on 71. 02 a nd notfor t he predi cat e offense, the appel lat e c our

t not ed th at “ ev en i f the the ft all eg ati on [formi ng the pr edi cat e cr imi nal ac ti v it y und er section 71.0 2(a)] in the organiz ed crimin al activi ty indictm entw as the same of fense for doub le jeo pardy pur poses , nothi ng w oul d precl ude t he St ate from prosec uti ng both the
org ani z ed c ri minal ac ti v it y offense and t he th eft off ense as separate o ff enses and seek ing sepa rate pu nishm ent s . . . .” Id. Last ly , i n Lamv. Sta te , 17 S .W .3d 3 81 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 0, pe t.
re f’d) , t he is sue w as w hether an org ani z ed c ri minal ac ti v ity ch arg e w as separate from the under ly ing offense for pur poses of doubl e j eopardy

. The Lamco urt s tated : As su m in g ar

guendo that appel lan t' s H ar ri s C ounty i ndi ctmentfor o rg ani z ed cr imi nal ac ti v it y

had been ba sed o n a predi cat e offense that w as subs tanti all y

the same a s o ne or m o re of the off enses for w hic h he w as9

charg ed i n F ort Be nd C ounty , w e hol d tha t hi s s ubseq uent For t Be nd C ounty ind ic tment w as not b ar re d by doubl e jeo pardy

. An org ani z ed c ri minal ac ti v ity is a separ

ate o ffens e, f

or double j

eopar dy pur pose s, f ro m any of t

he pr edicate act

s li ste d under sec ti

ons 71.02(

a) (1 )- (1 1) of the Tex

a s P e nal Code
. Id . at385 (e mph a sis added) , see a lso Queen v. State, 9 4 0 S

. W

. 2 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 7 (T e x. App .–A ustin 1 997 , pet . ref ’d) (concludin g tha t of fense s of capita l mu rder and engaging in organiz ed crimin al activi ty w ere no t the same for dou ble-jeo pard y purpo ses). Acc ordin g ly , w e hol d the tr ial co urt di d noter r in deny ing H uff ’s sp eci al ple a of dou ble jeo pard y

petitio n for p re-conviction w rit of hab eas co rpus as it relate d to Cou nts 1-3 (t he c api tal murder

co unts ) of the i ndi ctment

. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA 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 1 3th d ay

of Ma rc h, 20 08.