T EX . P EN . C ODE § 21.08. 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS

N O . P D - 1072- 09

EX PA R TE M A N U EL A M A D O R , A ppe l l ant

ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW I N CA USE NO . 0 8 - 0 7 - 0 0 3 3 1 - CR FRO M THE EI GH TH CO URT O F AP PEALS EL P ASO CO UNTY H OL C OM B , 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 , J OHNS ON and C O CHRAN , J J . jo in e d . C OCHR AN , J. , f i l e d a c o n c u r r in g o p in io n . K ELL ER , P . J. , f i l ed a di s s ent i ng opi ni on, i n w hi ch K EASLE R and H ERVEY , J J ., jo in e d . W OMACK , J. , di s s e nt e d. O P I N I O N The qu e s ti o n p r e s e n te d in th is c a s e is w h e th e r d o u b le je o p ar dy p r o h ib it s th e St ate f rom obtaining a conviction for an offense when t he defenda nt has pre viously

been c onvicted of a

lesseri n cl u d ed o ffense of that of fense . We hold that it does. W e must also deter mine the continuing validity of our holding in Br ic e no v . S tat e , 5 80 S.W. 2d

84 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ), that th e of fe ns e of indec ent exposure is a lesser- included off ense of the offen s e o f indece ncy with a child by 1AMADOR - Pag e 2

T EX . P EN . C ODE § 21.11 (a) (2)( A). 2

3 Th e inf or ma tio n a lle g e d th a t, o n o r a bo ut S e pte mbe r 2 2, 20 06 , a pp e lla nt, did then and t h er e, with i ntent to arouse a nd g ratify

the sexual desire of th e De fend ant , intentionally

and knowing ly

expose his g e nit als , and the De fenda nt was rec kless about whethe r anothe r wa s prese nt w ho would be off ended a nd alar med by his a c t in that De fend antwas r ubbing his g e nit als in a public par k, and G abr ie la Acosta, was pre sent and off ended or alar med by said ac t of exposure. (Emphasis in orig inal.) exposure. Id. at 8 4 4

. W e r ea ff i rm t h at h o l d i n g. 2 Back ground On September

25, 2006, appellant Ma

nuel Amador

was c harg ed with the misdemea nor offe nse of indece nt e x posure. The rec ord shows the following fac ts. On September 2 2 , 2 0 06, 3 Gabr iela Ac osta and a

woman name d Ba ez went to Houston P ar kin El Paso, Tex as. They wer e

acc ompanied by

Ba ez’s daugh ter, a

nd Acosta’ s son and daug hter. As the la dies approa ched the playg round portion of the pa rk, they saw appellant standing near a tre e, about f

ifty to six ty fee t away from them. The y

noticed that appe llant’s penis was out fr om the zipper of his pants, and that he was rubbing it. They

immediately

took the children a

way from the playg round are a in order to pr event them f r o m s e e in g w h a t a

p p e ll an t w a s d o in g . A c o s ta c a ll e d th e p o li c e . B y th e ti me the y arr ived, appellant ha d put his penis back into his pants and wa s sitti ng on a nea rby bench w here the police f o u n d an d d e t a i n e d h i m . A p p e l l an tp l e d

g u i l t y, w a i v e d

a j u r y t r i a l , an d

w a s s e n t e n c e d

t o 1 2 0 d a ys

c on fi ne me nt i n th e El Pa so County Jail

. A few months late r, on April 12, 2007, appellant was indicted for two counts of t h e t h i rd-AMADOR - Pag e 3

4 Count On e of the ind ic tme nt al le g e d tha t, o n o r a bo ut S e pte mbe r 2 2, 20 06 , a pp e lla nt “ did then and ther e with the intent to arouse o r gra t i fy the sexual desire of th e sa id D e fend ant , intentionally and knowing ly expose anypar t o f De fend ant ’s ge nit als to [ G .T. ], a child who was then and ther e y oung er tha n 17 y ear s of age and not defe ndant’s spouse, knowing that said child was prese nt.” (Emphasis in orig inal.) Count Two alleg ed that appellant, on the s ame date, “did then a nd there with the intent to arouse or g ratify the sexual desire of th e sa id D e fend ant , intentionally and kn o w i n g l y e xpo se anypar t o f De fend ant ’s ge nit als to [ K .T. ], a ch i l d who was then and there y oung er tha

n 17 y ear s of ag e and not de fenda nt’s spouse, knowing th at s ai d child was pre sent.” (Emphasis in orig inal.) deg ree felony

offe nse of indec ency

with a child by exposure. Appellant filed a n application for

a 4 pretria l writ of habe as cor pus, arguing that indecent e x p o s u re is a le sser-inc luded offe nse of indece ncy with a child by

exposure, and that d o u b l e jeopa rdy there fore barr ed his prosec ution for the ind e c e nc y -w ith -a -c hil d c ha rg e s bec a us e tho se c ha

rg e s we re ba se d on th e same a c t on wh ic h h is 2006 conviction for indece nt e x posure was based. The trial court conducte d a hea ring and sig ned

a wr itten order de ny ing r elief on a ppellant’s wr it application. Appellant appea led the trial court’s denial of relief on his w rit application. His sole issue on appea l was that indece nt exposure is a lesser-included offense of i ndece ncy with a child by exposure, and that the Double J eopar dy Clause of the United States Constit ution barr ed his curr ent prosec ution for indec ency with a child by exposure beca use t hat prosecution was based on the s ame act on which his 2 00 6 pro secution

and c on vic tio n f

or ind e c e nt e xpos ur e wa s b a se d. Th e c ourt of a pp e a ls disag ree d, and affirmed the trial court’ s judgme nt. Ex parte Am ador , No. 08-07-00331- CR, 2009 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 29 5 3 ( T e x. A p p . — E l Pa s o , Ap r il 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b li c a ti o n )

. We g rante d revie w solely to c onsider whether “the Double J eopar dy Clause of the Unit ed S t ates Con sti tut ion ba

rs a su bs e qu e nt pr os e c uti on fo r the of fe ns e of ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d a ft e r a

ple a to the lesser -included of

fense of indec ent exposure.”AMADOR - Pag e 4 I. Double J

eopardy: Gene ral Principles The Double J eo p ar d y

Clause of the F ifth Amendment, applica ble to all states throug h the F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt, pr ote c ts a

n a c c us e d ag a ins t (1) a se c on d p ro se c uti on fo r t he same of

fe ns e

a f t e r a c qu i t t a l , ( 2 ) a s e c o n d p r o s e c u t i o n f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n , an d ( 3) mul tip le punishments for the same off ense. Br own v . O hio , 4 32 U. S. 1 61 , 1 65 (1 97 7) ; Ev an s v . S tat e , 299 S.W .3d 138, 140-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The pre sent ca se involves a se cond prose cution for the same of

fense afte r convic tion. I n this contex t, “the F ifth Amendment forbids successive prosec ution and cumulative punishment for a g reater a nd lesser included offe nse.” 432 U.S. at 169. The “seque nce” of such prosec ution – i.e. , whe the r the g re a te r o r t he le sse r o ff

e ns e is p ro se c ute d f

ir st – is irrelevant. Id. The State may seek a multipl e-c ount indictment ag ainst a def endant ba sed on violation s o f

d if f e r e n t s tatute s ar is in g f

r o m a s in g le a c t; b u t, in

th e a b s e n c e o f a c le ar le g is lative intent to the contrar

y , the def endant may

be convicted and sentenc ed for only one off ense unde r such an indictment. Ball v. United States , 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985). II . A pp lic ati on to t

he Pr ese nt C

as e Appellant ar g ues that the c ourt of appe als “er red in holding that Petitioner' s conviction for the lesser included off

ense of indece nt expos ure did not bar subsequent prosec ution for indece ncy with a child” be cause “[t] his Court has specifica lly held [in Briceno ] that in de c e nt e xpos ur e is a lesser inc luded offe nse of indec ency with a child.” App. PDR at 2. “ Con sequently ,” appe llant

argue s, his “ c on vic tio n fo r ind e c e nt e xpos ur e ari sin g ou t of the same se t of

c ir c ums tanc e s b a rs his prosec ution for i n dece ncy with a child under

the Double Jeopardy

Clause of the U nited States Constit ution.” Id. I n revie wing this claim on appea l, the court of a ppeals a cknowledg ed our holding in BricenoAMADOR - Pag e 5

5 The c ourt of appe als also erred in considering the cha rg ing instruments of both the g reater and the lesse r off

enses in conduc ting its own lesser -included- offe nse ana ly sis in the pres ent case. See 2009 Tex. App. L EXI S at *8. As we e x plained in Ha ll v . S tat e , 2 25 S.W. 3d 524 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ), we do not c on sid e r t he c ha rg ingins tr

ume nt o f t

he a lle g e d le sse r- inc lud e d o ff e ns e in such ana ly ses. Rather, we compar e the statutory elements of the g reater offe nse, as they have be en alleg ed in the cha

rg ing instrument of

that offe nse, with only

the s t at u t o ry

elements of the lesserincluded off

ense. Id. at 535-36. We have rea ffirme d this approac h in se vera l de cisions following Ha ll

. See, e .g., Ex Parte W atson , 3 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 7 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 9 ) (o p . o n r eh ’g) (“B oth statutory

elements a

nd any descr iptive a

verme nts a lleg ed in the indictment for the g reaterinclusive offe nse should be compa red to the statutory

elements of the lesser of

fense .”). that indece nt expos ure w as a le sser-inc luded offe nse of indece ncy with a child by exposure. 2009 Te x. Ap p. L EX I S a t *8 . B ut i t c on c lud e d th a t Briceno wa s ina pp lic a ble to the pr e se nt c a se be c a us e it did not “involv[ e] a double jeopa rdy issue involving two sepa rate char g es.” Id. I n Briceno , a

pp e lla nt w a s c on vic te d of in dec e nc y wi th a c hil d b y e xpos ur e . H is s ole contention on direc t appea l was that “the trial court err ed in f ailing to instruc t the jury on the lesser included off

ense of indece nt e x posure.” 580 S.W .2d at 843. Thus, the cour t of appe als is corre ct that Briceno did no t i n v o l v e a d o u b le jeopar dy issue. But that doe s not reduce the ef fec t of our

e xpre ss h old ing in that c a se that “ the of fe ns e of ind e c e nt e xpos ur e . . . is a le sse r i nc lud e d o ff

e ns e of indec ency

with a child” by

exposure. 580 S.W .2d at 844. The Supre me Court has cle arly stated that “the Fifth Amendment forbids succ essive prose cution and cumulative punishment for a g reater and lesser included off

ense.” Brown, 432 U.S. at 169. Thus, it is t he state’ s classification that one of fe ns e is the le sse r- inc lud e d off e ns e of ano the r, and no t the c on te xt in wh ic h suc h c la ssi fi c a tio n is made, that is re levant to t he double-jeopardy analy sis in a g iven ca se. The c ourt of appe als there fore

e r r e d i nf a i l i n g t o a p p l y Briceno to the prese nt c ase only beca use double jeopar dy was not an issue in Briceno itself. 5AMADOR - Pag e 6

6 I n Briceno , w e re a so ne d a s f oll ow s: The e lements of [i ndece nt e x posure and indece ncy with a child by exposure] are identical except that indece ncy with a child require s the defe ndant to knowthat a c hil d is pr e se nt, wh e re ind e c e nt e xpos ur e re qu ir e s th a t th e de fe nd ant i s re c k le ss as to the prese nce of

another person . P r o o f

o f t h i s h i g h e r

d e g r e e o f

c u l p a b i l i t y, knowing , is pr oof of the lower culpable me ntal state, re ckless. V.T.C.A. Pena l Code, Sec. 6.02(3) . Proof that a c hild is prese nt nece ssarily would be proof of the pre sence of a pe rson. Thus, indece ncy with a child re quires, i n ad d ition to proving all the elements of indecent ex posure, a showing of the hig her c ulpable mental state and that the per son is a child. Article 37.09( 1), V.A.C.C.P., provides that " An offe nse i s a lesser included of fe ns e if : it is es ta bli sh e d by pr oo f of the same or le ss tha n all the fa c ts r e qu ir e d to establ i s h t h e commission of the offe nse cha rg ed." Thus, the offe nse of indec ent exposure under Sec . 21.08, supra, is a le sser i n cl u ded off ense of indece ncy

with a child, Sec. 21.11, supra

. 580 S.W .2d at 844 (e mphasis in origina l). Th e State a dmi ts that th e “ [g ]re a te r- inc lus ive and le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e s are the ‘s a me of fe ns e ’ f or do ub le -j e op ard

y purp os e s. ” State ’s B r. a t 6. I t als o a dmi ts that Briceno is the

e sta bli sh e d p re c e de nt i n Te xas fo r the pr op os iti on that inde c e nt e xpos ur e is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of indec ency

with a child by

exposure. Id. at 8. I t “ag ree s with Briceno that the e le me nts of bo th offe nses [indecent exposure and inde cenc y with a child by ex p o sure] are identical except for the circ umstances in which the exposure occur s.” Id. a t 9. I t argue s, ho we ve r, that “ Briceno omitted 6 from its analy sis an element of indece nt e x posure – that the person to w hom the exposure is directed be a pe rson who would be of fende d or ala

rmed by the exposure.” Id. Acc ording to the State, contra ry to the holding in Briceno , the offe nse of indec ent exposure re quires more than just proof that the de fenda nt is reckless a s to the pre sence of anothe r per son . .

. [I t] require s proof that the defe ndant was rec kless as to the pre sence of a pe rson who will be off

ended or alarmed by his ( the defendant’

s) act , a fa c t th a t is no t ne e de d to prove inde cenc y

with a child by

exposure, which re quires only the presence of a child. Proof that a c hild is present is not nece ssarily proof of the pre sence of a pe rsonAMADOR - Pag e 7

7 The State ra ises a separ ate c laim that “the cog nate- pleading s test set forth in Ha ll is not, and sh ou ld n ot b e , th e pr op e r t e st i n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a suc c e ssi ve pr os e c uti on is b arr e d b y

do ub le je o p ar dy . ” St a te ’ s B r . at 1 9

. I t ar g u e s th a t “ th e p r o p e r te s t f o r a d o u b le

- je o p ar dy c la im in th e c o n te xt of a succe ssive prosec ution is the s ame- elements test set forth in Blockburge r [ v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932),] and ex panded by this Court i n Pa rri

sh [ v . S tat e , 869 S.W .2d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)], which compar es the statutory elements a

nd al l of the a dditional non-statutory descr iptive aver ments in both [ the] charg ing instruments” o f t h e g reater a nd the lesser -included of

fense s. Id. at 3 0

. Bu t the cour

t of appe als did not even mention Ha ll ; an d w e g r an t e d r e v i e w , i n p a rt , to consider the con t i n u i n g v ali dity of Briceno , n ot Ha ll . We theref ore de cline to addr ess the above argume nts by

the State e xce pt to no te that Ha ll is the preva iling state standa rd, super cedingall other tests before it, for conduc ting a lesser- included-of

fense analy sis in any

context. Se e Ha ll , 225 S.W .3d at 535. who will be offe nded or a larmed by the def endant’ s exposure. Id. a t 10 (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) (c itatio ns omi tted ). B a se d o n th is r e a so nin g , th e State a sk s u s to

overr ule Briceno or distinguish it from the pre sent ca se. Id. at 9. We dis a g re e . I ro nic a lly , the State its e lf argue d a fe w y e ars a g o that “ ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d by exposure is merely

an ag g ravated ver sion of indece nt expos ure.” See Y an es v . S tat e , 149 S.W .3d 708, 711 (Tex. App.— Austin 2004, pet. ref ’d). The State was c orre ct in that instance. I ndece ncy wi th a c hil d b y e xpos ur e is sim

ply an a g g ra

vate d ve rs ion of ind e c e nt e xpos ur e ina smu c h a s, wh ile the offe nse of indece nt exposure require s the presence of a person who “will be off ended or alar med” b y t h e d ef

en dant’s ac t, see T EX . P EN . C ODE § 2 1

. 0 8 , th e o f f e n s e o f in d e c e n c y w it

h a c h il d by exposure, by

not having any

such re quirement, holds the defe ndant culpable even if the per son (the

c hil d) tow ard s w ho m the e xpos ur e is dir e c te d is no t “ of fe nd e d or a larm e d” by the de fe nd ant’ s a c t. See T EX . P EN . C ODE § 21.11. The lawin effe ct pre sumes that all children a re or should be “off

ended

or a larm e d” by

su c h expo sure . T hu s, the re is n o n e e d to re qu ir e the State to s ho w t hat a g ive n c hil d was in fa ct “of

fende d or ala

rmed” by a def endant’ s act of e x posure. 7 F ina lly , w e a dd

re ss som e of the argume nts ra ise d by the dis se nt. Th e dis se nt “ wo uld ho ldAMADOR - Pag e 8

8 See, e .g., W EB S TER ’ S N EW W O RLD C OL L EG E D I CT I O N A RY 724 (4 ed. 2005) (de fining th

“ i n d e c e n t ” a s “ m o r a l l y offensive ; obscene ,” and “ indece ncy ” simply as “the state or quality

of being ind e c e nt. ” ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; W EB S TER ’ S N I NTH N EW C OL L EGI AT E D I C T I O N A RY 612 (1983) (continued...) that two counts of indec ency with a child by

exposure can be based upon a single exposure if there

are two child v i cti ms.” Dis. Op. at 1. B ut that is not t he issue bef ore us today . Neither

party has raised this ar g ument at an y s t age i n this case – in the c ourts below or be fore this Court – and we g rante d revie w solely

to consider the c ontinuing validity of our holding in Briceno that i ndece nt exposure is a lesser-included offense of i ndece ncy with a child by exposure. See Court’s op. at 1-2. The diss ent “would also hold that an indecent-e x posure c harg e ca n be base d upon the same e x posure that g ave r ise to indece ncy -with-a- child counts so long as the defendant wa s rec kless with respec t to the prese nce of

at least on e person other than the child victims.” Dis. Op. at 1. As w e noted

e arl ie r, the Sup re me Court a llo ws the pr os e c uti on

to s e e k a mul tip le -c ount ind ict men t a g a ins t a defe ndant base d on violations of differ ent statutes arising from a sing le ac t, but the defe ndant may b e c o n v ic te d

a n d s e n te n c e d

f o r o n ly o n e o f f e n s e u n d e r

s u c h anin d ic tm e n t. See Court ’s op . at 4 (c i t i n g Ba ll , 4 70 U. S. at 86 5)

. I n oth e r wo rd s, e ve n tho ug h the State c an c ha rg e the de fe nd ant w ith the g reater a

nd a lesser -included of

fense , the def

endant c annot be c onvicted o f and se ntence d for both. Thus, the on l y q u es t i o n befor e us today is whether inde cent e x posure is in fac t a lesser

inc lud e d o ff

e ns e of ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d by e xpos ur e . Ac c or din g to t he dis se nt, it i s n ot b e c a

us e the statute for

indece nt expos ure r equire s the prese nce of a per son “who will be off ended or alar med,” while the statute for inde cenc y with a child by

exposure does not. But the c oncept of of fe ns e or a larm is a lr e a dy inc or

po rate d in the te rm “ ind e c e nc y .” I n fa c t, the re wo uld be no c ri me 8AMADOR - Pag e 9

(...continued) 8 (d ef ining “ indece nt” as “ g rossly unseemly

or offensive to ma

nners or morals,” and “indec ency” – ag ain – simply

as “the quality

or state of

being indece nt.”) (e mphasis added)

. if the def endant’ s act we re not c onsidered to be offe nsive or ala rming by someone. In the ca se of ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d, ho we ve r, i t is th e so cie ty that is “ of

fe nd e d o r a larm e d” by

the fa c t th a t it s children should be subje cted to such exposure. The lawthere fore criminalizes such exposure in the prese nce of

a child whe ther or not the child itself might have been offe nded or alar med i n a g iven

case . The dissent also ar g ues that the Briceno ho ldi ngthat “ re c kle ss” in i nd e c e nt e xpos ur e is a le ss culpable mental state of “ knowing ” in indece ncy with a child by

exposure, is not applicable to the prese nt case

. See Dis. op. at 15 (“B ut this hol ding w ith resp ec t t o l esser -included- offe nse jury instructions, while hi g hly rele vant t o a Double J eopar dy elements analy sis, is not dispositi ve of the Do ub le Jeop ard

y c la im be fo re us .” ). Ac c or din g to the dis se nt, our co nc e rn he re is “n ot o nly wi th the eleme nts of the statutory offe nses, but also with units of prosecution.” Id. I n other wor ds, the number of victims in the pre sent ca se make s all the diffe renc e. B ut our Penal Code does not provide fo r s uc h a dis tin c tio n. Ra the r, fo r al l off e ns e s p re sc ri bin g a

c ulp a ble me nta l st a te , th e Cod e sim ply and cle arly

states that “[c]ulpable mental states ar e cla ssified ac cordingto rela t i v e degr ees, f rom highe st to lowest,” with “knowing ” ra nking hig h er t h an “r eckle ss” in the Code’s mea sure of culpability

. See T EX . P EN . C ODE § 6.02. Conclusion Double jeopa

rdy prohibits the State from obtaining a convic tion for an of fense if the defe ndant has pre viously

been c onvicted of a lesser -included of fense of that off

ense. Brown, 432 U.S. at 169. We rea ffirm our holding in Briceno that in de c e nt expo sure is a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns eAMADOR - Pag e 10

of indece ncy with a child by exposure. See 580 S.W .2d at 844. The c ourt of appe als there fore err ed in failing to apply

that holding to the pr esent c ase. We ther efor e re verse the judg ment of the c ourt of appe als, and re mand the ca se to the trial cour t for proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion.

DEL I VERED: OCTOB ER 13, 2010 PUB L I SH