### NUM BERS 13-0 8-00 465- CR 13-08- 0046 6-CR 13-08- 0046 7-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 - 

## E D I N B U R G

PA IGE SA ND OVA L A

/K/A PA GE S A ND OVA L, A pp ellan t,

v. TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 14 8t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s Memoran du m Op inio n by C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Pai g e Sand ov al a/k/a P ag e Sand ov al, pl eaded g uil ty to thr ee c ounts of pr ost it uti on. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 43.02 (V er non 2003). The tr ial co urt found t he
ev ide nce subs tanti ated Sandov al’ s g uil t as to each coun t, and af ter r ecei v ing ev ide nce ofT he i ndi ct m ent s al l eged t hat Sandov al “ had pr ev i ousl y been conv i ct ed oft hr ee o r m or e t i m es of t he 1 o f f e n s e o f P r o s tit u tio n
. . . .” A l t h o u g h p r o s t i t u tio n is a C la s s B m is d e m e a n o r , “ [i] f th e a c to r h a s p r e v io u s ly be en co nvi c t ed t hre e or m ore ti m es o f [ pro s t i t uti on ]

. . . t he o ffen s e i s a s t ate j ai l fel on y
. ” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 4 3.02 (Ve rno n 2 00 3).

Each off ense was assi gned a sep ar at e cau se nu m ber by t he cour t bel ow. T he M ay 29t h i ndi ct m ent 2 char ged Sandov al wi t h one of f ense al l eged t o hav e occur r ed o n Apr i l 23, 200 8 an d an ot her of f ense al l eged t o h a v e o c c u r r e d o n F e b r u ar y 29, 2 0 0 8

. Th e s e o f f e n s e s w e r e a s s i g n e d t r i a l c o u r t c a u s e n u m b e r s 0 8

- CR18 34 -E an d 0 8-C R -18 35 -E , res pe c t i vel y
. T he offen s e c ha rge d i n t he J un e 5th i nd i c t m en t w as a l l eg ed to ha ve o c c u r r e d o n A p r il 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d it w a s g iv e n t r ia l c o u r t c a u s e n u m b e r 0 8

- C R

- 1 9 2 4

- E

. O n a p p e a l, th e A p r il 23, 200 8 off ense has b een assi gned cause num ber 13- 08- 465- C R , t he Febr uar y 29, 200 8 of f ense has b een assi gned cause num ber 13- 08- 466- C R , and t he Apr i l 12, 2008 of f ense has been assi gned cause num ber 13- 0 8 -4 6 7 -C R

. 2 the e nhanc emen t all eg ati ons cont ain ed i n the i ndi ctment s, ass ess ed puni shmentat
e ig h t e e n m o n t h s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t f o r e a c h co u n t , wit h t h e se n t e n c e s t o ru n co n s e c u t ive ly. 1 In a single issue, Sa ndo v al cont end s that the trial court erred in cumu lating his sente nces. The Stat e c oncurs. W e modi fy the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ments, and aff ir m th e m a s modified. I. B A CKGRO UND Sandov al w a s ch ar g ed by i ndi ctmenton M ay

29, 2008 w it h tw o off enses of pr ost it uti on. S e e i d. On J u n e 5, 2008, Sandov al w as char g ed by i ndi ctmentfor a n addi ti onal off ense of pros ti tuti on. See i d. O n J uly1 , 2008, Sandov al, w it hout a pl ea 2 agreem ent , plea ded g uilty to each off ense and “true” to the enh ance me nt pa ragraphs in each ind ic tment. The t ri al cour t found Sa ndov al g uil ty of each off ense, fou n d the pr ior
conv i c t i o n s t o b e “ t r u e , ” a n d s e n t e n c e d S a n d o v a l t o e i g h t e e n mo n t h s ’ i mp r i s o n me nt for
e a c h o f f e n s e , wit h t h e se n t e n c e s t o ru n co n s e c u t ive ly.

II. C UM ULA TI ON OF S ENT ENC ES T e xa s P e n a l C o d e S e c t io n 3

. 0 3 p ro vid e s t h a t “s e n t e n c e s sh a ll ru n co n c u rr e n t ly”

w hen “ the a cc used is found g uil ty of m or e than one off ense ar is ing out of the s ame cr imi nal episo de prose cute d in a single cri min al action .” T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 3.03 (V er non Sup p. 20 0 8 ). A def end ant is prosecute d in a “single cr imina l action” w hen the of f ense3

ar is es out o f the s ame cr imi nal episod e, ev en i f multi ple ch ar g ing i nst ru ments pr ov ide the b asi s for pr osec uti on. LaPor

te v . St ate , 84 0 S. W .2 d 41 2, 41 4 ( Tex

. C r i m. Ap p. 199 2). “C ri minal epi sode ” is def ine d as “ the c ommis si on of tw o or mor e off enses , r eg ar dle ss of

w hether the har m is dir ect ed tow ar d or infli cte d upon more than one per son, ” w her e “ the of f ense s are the rep eat ed co mm ission of the sam e or similar of

f ense s.” T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 3.0 1 (2 ) (V erno n 20 03). It is und ispute d tha t San doval w as “f oun d guilty of more than one offense ar is ing out of the s ame cr imi nal epi sode pr osec uted in a s ing le cr imi nal action .” See i

d.; see als o Gui

dr y v . St ate , 909 S.W .2d 584, 585 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1995, pet. re f'd) (“ Sect ion 3.01 (2 ) does not i mpose a ti me di ff er ent ia l b e twe en th e
com mission of

the sam e o r s im ilar of f ense s.”). Therefor e, pu rs uant to s ect ion 3.03 , t he trial court shou ld have o rdered t he sent ence s t o run concu rrently. W e susta in San doval’s sol e iss ue and modify

his sent ence acc or din g ly

. See B eedy v. State , 250 S.W .3d 1 07, 1 13 (Tex . C ri m App. 2008) ( hol din g that an unl awful c umulat ion or der i s r emedie d by

del eti ng the c umulat ion or der ). III
. C ONCL US I ON W e modifythe tr ial co urt’ s j udg ments to de let e tha t por ti on r eq uir ing the cumul ati on of senten ces i n the se cas es, and aff ir m the jud g ments as modified

.

_________

_________

_____ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice

Do not P ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 24t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.