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

N O . A P - 75, 962

EX PA R TE M I G U EL R A M O S, A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 2 0 0 5 CR4 8 5 7 I N T HE 2 9 0 TH DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM BEX AR CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W

. 2 d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s char g ed with burg lary of habitation with intent to commit a felony in count one of the indictment and burg lary of habitation wi th i nte nt t o c omm it the ft in c ount tw o of the ind ic tme nt. Th e jur y c on vic te d h im o f b oth

c ounts and the tria l judge assessed punishment of six ty (60) year s’ conf

inement for e ach c ount and

res ti tu ti on in the amou

nt o f $ 7, 58 5. 00 fo r c ount t wo . T he F ourt

hCou rt of Ap pe a ls a ff

ir me d his convictions. Ra mo s v . S

tate , No AP-04-05-00543- CR, (Te x . App. — San Antonio, 2005, pet. ref ’d)RAMOS -- 2

(Not desig nated f

or publication). Applicant conte nds that his conviction for two counts of burg lary of habitation ag ainst two differ ent complainants during one unlawful entry violates the Double J eopar dy Clause of the U nited States Consti tution. The tr ia l j u d g e th o r o u g h ly r e v ie w e d th e r e c o r d

an d c o n c lu d e d

th a t A p p li c an t’ s c o nviction for two counts of burg lary of habitation ag ainst two differ ent complaints violates the constitutional p r o h ib it io n a g a in s t d o u

b le je o p ar dy b e c a

u s e th e r e w a s o n ly o n e u n la w f u l e n tr y . See E x pa rte Cavazos , 2 03 S.W. 3d

33 3 ( Te x. Cr im. App

. 20 06). Th e tr ia l ju dg e ob se rv e d th a t w he n a do ub le je op ard y vio latio n h a s o c c ur

re d, the mos t se ri ou s o ff

e ns e is r e ta ine d, and the le ss se ri ou s o ff e ns e is set aside. Id . at 337-339. The trial judge conclude d that the m ost serious off ense in this case was the burg lary

of habitation with intent to commit a felony alleg ed in count one of the i ndictment as this was a first de g ree felony wher eas the burg lary

of habitation wit h intent to commit t heft a lleg ed in count two of the indictment wa s a sec ond deg ree felony . The trial judg e ther efor e re commended that count two of the indictment be set aside. We agree . We gr ant Applicant pa

rtial relief . We find that Applicant is entitled to relief a s to count two of the ind ic tme nt o nly . T he jud g me nt a nd se nte nc e imp os e d und e r c ount t wo of the ind ic tme nt i n Cause No. 2005CR4857 from the 290th J udicial District Court of Be x ar County is set aside. The judgme nt, as ref

ormed, shall re flec t only one conviction for the offe nse of bur g lary of habitation as alleg ed in count one of

the indictment. Copies of this opinion s hall be sent to the T e xa s D e p a r tm e nt o f Crim ina l J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.RAMOS -- 3

Deliver ed: J uly

2, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh