NO. 07-08 -000 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y29, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JAMES LE ON W ILL IAMS, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 40 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF E L L IS COU NT Y; NO . 304 67C R; H ON ORABLE RI CH AR D DA VIS, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, James Leon W il li ams, w as charg ed b y indictment w it h two c ounts of cr imi nal ly

neg li g ent h omic ide

. Appel lan t was conv icted b y a j ur y and sent enced to sev en y ears i mpri sonment , howev er , t he te rm of confine ment w as sus pended and app ell ant was pla ced on c ommunity

su per v is io n fo r a per iod of sev en y ears. Appel lan t app eal s t he jud g men t o f

t h e t ria l cour

t c lai ming a v iol ati on of the due proces s c lau se of the U nit ed St a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e d u e c o u rs e o f l a w p ro v i s i o n o f t he Tex as C on s ti tu ti on . W e affi r m.The record i s u ncl ear w hen t he tr ial w as to ha v e c ommenced. A notat ion on t he 1 Cl er k’ s l is t of j urors c hosen i ndi cat es that tr ial w as sc hedul ed to beg in Janua ry 29, 2 007. Dur ing the tr ial cour

t’ s preli minar

y sta tements to the jur

y panel , the tr ial j udg e adv is ed th e cas e woul d be tr ied the 22 or 23 of Janua ry , 200 7. nd rd 2 Factual and Procedu ra l Backg ro und Appel lan t i s not cla imi ng er ro r in the u lt imat e tr ial of his ca se, i nst ead he is cl aimi ng tha t th e c ha rg es a g ai ns t hi m s ho ul d ha v e be en d i s mi s s ed b efo re he s to od t r i al b ec au se of v iol ati on of both his U nited S tates and Tex as cons ti tuti onal r ig hts

. For thes e reason s w e w il l onl y

add re ss t h o se pro cedural facts that are rele v ant t o our dete rmi nati on of the issues.On N ov ember

6, 2006, a jury was s e le cte d to tr y appel lan t’ s c ase. That jur y w as seat ed b ut no t sworn. T he se lected jury was inst ructed t o return for t he trial of app ellant ’s cas e on Nov ember

14, 2006. U pon ar ri v al for tr ial , app ell ant was noti fied th at tw o of the jurors h ad bec ome i ll and were unable t o c onti nue. After appel lan t was unabl e to ag re e to two substitut e jurors f rom th e jury li s t , t h e p a nel w as dism issed an d the mat ter w as, subse quently, reschedu led for jury selection on Janua ry 9, 2007 , w ith trial to com me nce lat er i n J anuar

y . The s econd v oir

di re w as condu cte d on Janua ry 9, 2007, and a jur

y w as 1 ag ain se lected b ut no t s w or n. Dur ing the appel lan t’ s p orti on of v oir di re , there w ere numerous confro ntati ons between t he tr ial j udg e and appel lan t’ s tr ial couns el. As an example, at the b eg inn ing of app ellant ’s v oir dire, tr ial coun sel began giv ing a recitatio n abo ut his backgroun d and fam ily w hen t he tr ial judg e stated “N o bi og ra phi es. ” Tri al couns el re act ed w it h the st atement, “ But3

it ’s my ti me, Judg e.” The tr ial j udg e retor ted, “N o bi og ra phi es. I ’m g lad y ou won th e war .” Later i n the v oir

di re , t ri al couns el w as dis cus si ng a f actpatt er n w it h a p ro specti v e j uror and, after the j uror

had sta ted t hat h e woul d consi der the fact patter n an acc ide nt, the t ri al jud g e made t he foll ow ing co mment w it hout the S tate int er posi ng an o bje cti on, And that ’s not w hatit is. It’s c ri m in a l neglig enthom icide. If y ou f ind th at it w as com mitt ed it w as criminal negligence–crim inally neglig enth om icide. It’s not c onsi dered a, q uote, ac ci dent. Af ter the trial j udge’s com me nt, trial cou nsel sta ted , “And if y ou d on’t th ink the y proved it bey ond a re asona ble doubti t’ s c all ed an acq uittal .” The tr ial courtremark ed, “ There y ou go, Mr. F in n . No w you ’re on .” Tr ia l co u n se l st a te d , “T h a n k yo u ,” to whic h th e tri a l ju d ge commented , “ If y ou want t o g et i nto i t, we c a n g et i nto i t.” The tr ial j udg e’s co ncl udi ng comment in thi s p orti on of the v oir di re w as, “ Al l righ t. T h a t’ s f ine

. Let’ s s ee w ho w ins .” Ul ti matel y , t he j ur

y w as sel ect ed and the t ri al w as re ces sed to a lat er date

. Pr ior to reconv eni ng for t ri al, the tr ial j udg e s ent a l etter , on Janua ry 11, 2007, adv is ing co unsel thatthe jur y se lected b ut no t s w or n on Janua ry 9, 2007, w as dis mis sed and t hat a new

tr ial date had been s et. On Janua ry 16, 2007, appel lan t’ s t ri al couns el filed a request for the ent ry of f indings of fact and conclusions of law regard in g t h e co u rt ’s reaso ns for d ischarging the se lected b ut notsworn ju ry . Th at sam e da y , trial counse l also filed a motion req uest ing a hear ing pri or to the dis charg e or dis mis sal of the sel ect ed but not s w or n j ur

y . Al so filed on J anuar y 16, 2007, w as a moti on to recus e/di sq ual ify the tr ial ju d ge . T h e t ri a l ju d ge re f u s e d t o re c u s e a n d t h e m a tt e r wa s re fe rre d t o t h e A d m in is t ra t ive Judg e for the 1 Admi nis trati v e R eg ion for a ss ig nment of a j u d ge to h e a r the moti on to st4

re cus e. A hear ing on t he moti on to recus e w as conducted on Febr uar y 22, 2007, and an order of recu sa l was ent ered by the v is it ing j udg e on Febr uar y 27, 2007, w it h a d ifferent v is it ing j udg e bei ng as si g ned t o tr y appel lan t’ s c ase. On J uly 5, 2007, the a ss ig ned v is it ing jud g e heard appel lan t’ s moti on to dis mis s t he ind ictment ag ain st him. The moti on all eg ed the same g ro unds as all eg ed on appeal

. The v is it ing j u d ge o ver ru led the moti on. Tri al w as subs eq uentl y co nduct ed on Oct ober 29, 2007, and a v erdict of g uil ty w as re tur ned on Oct ober 31, 2007. After

the jur y ’s v erdict, the v is it ing j udg e as ses sed appel lan t’ s s entenc e at sev en y ears impr is onment o n eac h of the two c ounts , w it h the ter m of confinementsu spend ed on each coun t and pl aced appel lan t on c ommunity

su per v is ion for a per io d o f

s ev en years. Iti s from thi s j udg ment t hat app ellantapp eals. Throug h two is sues , app ell ant c ontends thatthe sua spontea ction of the trial court in d is m is s in g t h e ch o s e n b u tn o tswo rn ju ry vi o la t e d h is co n s t it u t io n a l r ig h t s . Sp e c if ic a ll y, app ellantconte nds: 1) the dism issal of the sele cted jury v iolate d his rig ht to due process under the Fi fth and Four teent h Amendment s t o the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and 2) the dis mis sal of the s ele cte d j ur y v iol ated his co nst it uti onal r ight to d u e c ourse of law under Ar ti cl e I, se cti on 19 of the Tex as Con sti tuti on. W e di sag re e and aff ir m the jud g ment.

D ue P roc es s a nd D ue C ou rs e of L aw C l ai ms T he relevant facts lea ding up to th e dism issal of the cho sen b utu n s wo rn jury are relatively unco nte sted . Th e t ri a l judge an d trial coun sel engaged in a pa ttern of conf lict tha t, acco rding to the m em bers of the jury pan el w ho testif ied atthe recu sal hea ring, could5

be lab eled as exhibiting anim us toward trial coun sel. Rathe r tha n a question of the na ture of the ex chang es between t he tr ial j udg e and tr ia l co unsel , t he real q uest ion s a re w hat doe s t he record rev eal as the rea son for t he discha rg e of the un sw orn juryand how mu st w e g aug e the acti on of the tr ial j udg e i n di sc harg ing the jur y w hen the tr ial jud g e g av e no reaso n for the d ischarge of the selecte d but unsworn jury

. W e are left to revi ew the record in a n a tt e m p tt o a s c e rt a in wh a tle d t o t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f t h e ju ry. Si nce the j ur

y chos en w as not swor n, jeo pardy had not yet attac hed. See Dow num v . U nit ed St ates , 372 U. S. 7 34, 8 3 S. Ct1033, 10 L .Ed. 2d 100 (1 963) ( conc lud ing that , for purp oses o f

the Fif th Am end me nt, jeo pard y atta ches when t h e j uryis sworn); see also Proct or v . St ate, 841 S. W .2d 1 , 4 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992)(conc lud ing that for pur poses of the fede ral constitu tion and t he state co nstitu tion, je opa rdya ttach es at the t ime t he jury is s wo rn ). Be c a u s e je o p a rd y h a d n o ta tt a c h e d a tt h e t im e t h e t ri a l ju d ge d is m is s e d t h e ju ry, appel lan t i s l eft to c lai m har m throug h a deni al of due proces s for pur poses of his federal cons ti tuti on c lai m and deni al of du e course of l aw for p ur poses of his st ate c onst it uti onal c l ai m. Appel lan t c ontends thatfor p ur poses of anal y si s, w e mustv iew the act ion of dis mis si ng the chos en but uns w or n j ur y as a de nia l of due proces s a nd due course of law w ithou t regard to an inquiry into ba d faith o n the part of the tri a l ju dge. App ellant ’s cont enti on i s based upon w hat he descr ibe s as “hi s v alu ed r ig ht t o hav e the tr ial co mplet ed by a part ic ula r tr ibu nal .” See W ade v . Hunte r, 336 U. S. 684, 68 9, 69 S.C t. 834, 93 L. Ed. 974 (1949 ). Addition ally , app ellantconte nds that, by f inding a due process an d du e cou rse o f la w vio la t io n , we wil l re c o gn ize t h e im p ro p ri e ty o f t h e t ri a l j u d ge ’s a ct io n s . Fi n a ll y,6

appel lan t c ontends thatsu sta ini ng the tr ial j udg e’s acti ons w oul d ev is cerate t he hol din g of Bat son v. Kentu cky

for it would allow

judges to dism iss jury

pan els chose n bu t notsworn or prosec utors t o di smi ss ind ictments w it hout preju dic e after a jur y has been c hosen but not s w or n i n order

to affectthe ra ci al compos it ion of jur ies

. See Batso n v . Kentuc ky , 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 17 12, 90 L.E d.2 d 69 (1989 ). W e dec li ne appell ant’ s inv it ati on to assume bad fait h on the partof the t ri al jud g e. W e do so for two reas ons. Fi rs t, the record rev eal s t hat t he tr ial j udg e habi tual ly se lects a number

of jur ies at one tim e . I n al l cas es, unl ess tr ial i s s tar ti ng i mmediat ely , t he s el ecte d j urors a re ex c us ed t o c om e ba c ko n th e ap po i nt ed da y for t r i al

. I t i s a t th att i me that the j urors a re swor n. Acc ordin g ly , t he facts do n ot s ust ain appel lan t’ s c ontent ion that , by n ots w ea r i ng t he j ur

y i n aft er t he y w ere s el ecte d, t he t r i al c ou rt mu s t ha v e ha d s om e nefari ous pla n i n mind. F urther , t he record rev eal s t hat t he members o f the j ur y panel w ho tes ti fied atthe re cus al hear ing all felt that the tr ial jud g e had been ru de or ar ro g ant w it h tr ial couns el. The c onsen sus of opi nio n among st thos e w it ness es w as that appel lan t mi g ht no t get a fair trial i f

trial counse l continu ed to represen t him in f ronto f t h e t ri a l ju dge. Th is tes ti mony

i s c onsi ste nt w it h the Sta te’ s p osi ti on th at t he tr ial co urt di smi ss ed th e s ele cte d but u nswor n j ur

y bec ause the t ri al jud g e re ali z ed th at he had ov erste pped t he boun ds of proper j udi cial co nductdur ing the v oir di re . Seco ndl y , we not e tha t t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our

t has been re luctant to presume v ind icti v ene ss a gainst defendants w hen all eg ati ons of due proces s v iol ati ons o cc ur before the c oncl usi on of tr ial

. See U nit ed Stat es v . G oodw in, 457 U. S. 3 68, 3 69, 1 02 S. Ct . 248 5, 73 L.E d.2d 74 ( 1982) ( deci din g w hether to appl y

a presumpt ion of bad fait h, previo u sly u se d to ev alu ate a j udi ci al or7

prosec utor ial respon se to de fendant’s ex erci se of a r ig ht t o retr ial , t o ev alu ate a prose cuto r’s pretrial respo nse to defend ant ’s dem and for a jury trial ). The refore, we w ill notapp ly a p resum ption o f

b ad faith or vindictiveness against the t rial jud ge in th is matt er. I f we d o n o tp re s u m e b a d fa it h o r vi n d ic t ive n e s s , t h e n u p o n wh a tb a s is m a y we g ra nt ap pel lan t t he reli ef he re q uest s? Appel lan t cl aims w e shoul d base our dec is ion on his v alu ed ri g ht to hav e the tri al compl eted by this parti cul ar

tri bunal

. W ade, 336 U .S. at 689. W e not e, as di d J ust ic e Powell i n hi s d is senti n C ri st v . Bretz thatW ade as ser ts that ri g ht w it hout benefit of anyanal y si s o r re ferenc e to other auth or ity

for the al leg ed r ig ht. See C ri st v . Bretz , 437 U.S. 28, 53, 98 S.C t. 2156, 57 L. Ed.2d 24 ( 1978)

. W e mustthen conc lud e t h a t , w i t h o u ta p re s u mp t i o n o f b a d fa i t h o r v i n d i ct i v e n e s s , a p p e l l a n td o e s n ot hav e a r ig ht t o a t ri al in front of a par ti cul ar j ur y . See G oodw in, 457 U. S. a t 384

. Addi ti onal ly , w hil e di sc uss ing remedia l act ion s b y co urts in the due proces s a re na, Ju st ice Marsh a ll in Un it e d St a te s v. L o vas co urge d ca u ti o n by st a ti n g, But the D ue Proces s C lau se does not p er mit cour ts to ab ort c ri minal prosec uti ons si mply

bec ause they dis ag re e w it h a p ro sec utor ’s j udg ment as to w hen t o s eek an i ndi ctment

. Judg es are notfree, i n d efini ng “ due proces s,” to impos e o n l aw enforc ement offici als our “ personal and pr iv ate not ions” of

fairness an d to “disregard the limits thatbind jud ge s i n their jud ic ial functi on.” Uni ted S tates v . Lov asc o, 43 1 U .S. 783, 790, 97 S. Ct . 204 4, 52 L.E d.2d 752 ( 1977) (c o n c e r n i n g d i s mi s s i n g a n i n d i ct me n tb e c a u s e t h e p ro s e c u t o r d e l a y e d t h e i n i t i a t i o n of prose cution ). R ath er t han co unse l ca ution in in terpo sing jud icial action, app ellantwould hav e us a s s u me t h a t fa i l u re t o re c o g n i z e h i s d u e p ro c e s s c l a i m w o u l d l e a d t o an8

ev is cerati on of Bats on v . Kentuc ky

. The probl em w it h tha t as sumpti on i s t hat i f a proper Bats on obj ect ion has been made then the re cord of tr ial woul d al low

an a ppel lat e c our

t t o ru le acc ordin g ly w it hout the neces si ty of as sumi ng bad faith or v ind icti v eness of any one. Appel lan t has als o ci ted thi s cour t to two cas es o u t o f Fl or ida to suppo rt his due proces s a rg ument. Howev er , on c los e readi ng , nei ther ca se is appl ic abl e to the fact s a t bar

. In Stat e v .Good man, 696 So.2d 940 (F la. Di st. Ct

. App.–4 th 19 9 7 ), th e prosec utor took a nolle p ross on a case shortly af ter the trial court ruled tha t the State ’s action in ex erci si ng a pe re mptor

y ch all eng e ag ain st a minor ity vi ola ted Fl or ida ’s v ersi on of a Ba tso n challen ge. The trial c o u rtd id n o tf ind th at th e Sta te act ed in ba d faith, y et th e trial court dis mis sed the cas e upon the defendant’s m oti on. The appel lat e c our t hel d tha t a findi ng of bad faith w as not n eces sar y , howev er , t he l ang uag e use d b y the app ell ate c our t was suc h as to impl y

i mprop er

moti v e. The appel lat e c our t s tated , W e s trong ly

di sapprov e of the stat e’s i mprop er us e of peremptor

y ch all eng es to strike a prosp ective juror on accou nt of the juror’s race. Equally , howev er, we co n d e m n th e st a te ’s p e tu la n t re f u sa l to try its ca se to a ju ry con ta in in g a member w hom i t had i mprop er ly so ug ht t o s tr ik e. Id. at 94 3. The opi nio n c lea rl y i ndi cat es that the State w as g uil ty of w ro ng doi ng i n tak ing a nulle p ross

after obtaini ng an a dv erse ru li ng thatthei r prev iou s a cti ons w ere i ll eg al. I n li g ht of the l ang uag e us ed by the appel lat e c our

t, the factthat theydid not ov er ru le the t ri al cour t’ s fin din g on no bad faith cannotbe re ad to dispens e w it h some sor t of req uirement of bad faith or

v ind icti v eness on t he par t of the prosec utor

. Suc h el ement i s t otal ly mis si ng f ro m t h e fa ct s o f

t h e ca s e a tb a r. T h e o t h e r F lo ri d a ca s e c i t e d b y a p p e ll a n t , K o e n ig v. Stat e, 49 7 So. 2d 875, 884 (F la. D is t. Ct . Ap p.–3rd 1986) , i s ci ted for the proposi ti on th at,9

ev en th oug h the defendant did not urg e a due proc ess vi ola ti on, had he done s o i t mi g ht v er y w ell hav e s ucc eeded. The por ti on q uoted by

appel lan t was in a c oncur ri ng opi nio n and i s, at be st, di cta . S u b se que nt t o the F lor ida opi nio ns re ferred to by appel lan t i s t he Fl or ida ca se of State v . H urd w hic h c oncl uded t hat t he v ali dity of t he defendant’ s a ll eg ed d u e p ro ce ss v iol ati on depe nded up on w hether the Stat e’s acti on was moti v ated by an imp rope r purpose . State v . Hurd, 73 9 So. 2d 1 226 , 122 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.–2nd 199 9). It w ould , the refore, ap pea r that s o m e sort of showi ng of

improp er mo tiv e or bad faith is required in Florida before an alleged due proce ss v iolation of the sort alleged he re could be found. Base d upon our

readi ng of the c ases , i t i s o ur determi nati on th at s ome ty pe of improper moti v e or

bad faith mus t be attr ibu tabl e to the t ria l jud g e before w e woul d be a u t h o ri ze d t o f in d a vi o la t io n o f a p p e ll a n t ’s d u e p ro c e s s ri gh t s u n d e r t h e fa ctsc e n a ri o we a re p re se n te d . T h e rec o rd in th is c a se sim p ly do e s n o t s u p p o rtth a t t ype of f in d in g. Acc ordin g ly , we hol d that the tr ial cour t did not v iol ate appel lan t’ s due proces s r ig hts under the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. Appel lan t has als o contended that the tri al cour t’ s a cti on v iol ated his due course of law rig hts un der the T exas Constitut ion. Yet, app ellanthas no t cited th is court to a single cas e tha t di sc uss es the d ue c ourse of law r ig hts of a c ri minal defendant in the c ontext of an a ction b y

the trial court, or ev en p rosecu tor, pri or to j eop ardy attachin g. Likewise, there are no ci tati ons to au thor ity for t he proposi ti on that a v iol ati on of a du e c ourse of law

r ig ht of a cr imi nal ly

ac cus ed c an oc cur

w it hout any

nec essit y o f

i mprop er

moti v e or

bad faith. W e are s i mp l y

a s k ed t o as s um e ba d fai th on th e pa rt of th e j ud g e an d to fur th er a s s um e10

that if w e do not rev erse the judg ment of the tr ial courtand order the ind ictments di smi ss ed w e w i l l b e s etti ng t he s ta g e for j ud g es t o fee l free t o di s mi s s j ur y p an el s s i mp l y

beca use a pa nel m ight be perce iv ed a s more favorable to o ne p arty tha n the othe r. T h e s e are ass umpti ons that w e c annot make. W hil e i t i s t ru e tha t c our ts in Tex as hav e hel d tha t t he due c ourse of law g uarantee of t he Tex as Con sti tuti on may offer broader protecti on th an the d ue proces s g uarantees of the U n ited St ates C onst it uti on, s ee W ri g ht v . St ate, 640 S.W .2d 2 65, 2 69 n. 12 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1982) , w e hav e found no thi ng to ind ic ate t hat Texas w oul d di spat ch w it h a s how ing of bad fait h or i mprop er

moti v e on the partof the t ri al jud g e. In Tex as, tr ial co urts hav e broad di sc re ti o n o ver jur y se lecti on. See W ri g ht v . St ate, 28 S.W .3d 526, 533 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)

. W e do not feel the neces si ty to int er fere w it h tha t discretion . Appe llant’s is s u e r e ga rd ing a v iolation of his due co urse of

law rig hts is ov er ru led

. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Publ is h.