### NUM BER 13-06- 428- 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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellan t,
v . A BR A HA M C HA

VEZGU ERR ERO , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 17t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a

Opin ion b y

Ju stice Ya ñe z After a benc h tr ial , a tr ial judg e found A braham C hav ezGuer re ro g uil ty of v ar iou s cr imi nal offenses and pronoun ced puni shmentat fiv e y ears’ i mpri sonment

. Later that same d ay , t he tr ial j udg e c hang ed her f ind ing of

gui ltto not g uil ty

and entered a jud g ment of acq uittal

. The Stat e appea ls the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment, asserti n g t h a t a jud g ment of c o n vic t io n m u s tb e e n t e re d b e c a u s e t h e t ri a l j u d ge la c k e d t h e p o we r t o ch a n ge h e r o wn re asone d findi ng of g uil t t o notg uil ty

. W e find th a t, u n d e r the fact ual ci rc umstan cesT EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . §§ 15

. 01 (Ve rno n 2 00 3), 22

. 01 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 07 ). 1 Id

. § 2 2.11 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 2 2 prese nte d he rein, the trial j udge w as f ree to ch ange he r find ing. Because t h e S tate is appeal ing from a v ali d jud g ment of ac q uittal , w e further find t hat t he St ate h as no r ig ht t o appeal , and i ts appeal mustbe d is mis sed for want o f jur is dicti on. I. Back ground On July 14 , 200 5, Gue rrero was ind icted on one co untof atte mp ted sex ual assa ult of a c hi l d an d two c ou nt s of i nd ec en cy w i th a c hi l d. Gu er rero w ai v ed hi s r i g ht to a jury

1 2 trial a nd electe d to have the co urt assess pun ishm ent

. A ben ch trial comm ence d on July 10, 2 006. The c hil d i n q uest ion , D .F ., tes ti fied attr ial

. D. F. , a si xteen- y ear-o ld female at the t ime of the all eg ed ass aul t, and the y oung er si ste r of G uer re ro ’s fianc ee, t est ified that Guer re ro had made physi cal , unwanted sex ual adv ance s tow ards her as sh e l aid i n her bed room . Guerrero, te stif y ing i n his defense , cont este d the truthf ulne ss of D.F.’s te s ti mo ny . Ac c ordi ng to Gu er rero, itw as D. F

. w ho ma de a s ex ua l a dv an c e to w ards h i m; he i mmediat ely

rej ect ed the adv ance and told D.F . that he woul d be tel li ng her si ste r about the inciden t, w hich D.F. prote sted beca use she feare d her si ster would be upset w ith he r. Afte r bo th th e St a t e a n d G u e rre ro gave th e ir cl o sin g argu m e n ts , t h e tri a l ju d ge st a te d th e fo llo wing: Yo u kn o w, in a ll s e xu a l a s s a u lt c a s e s , ge n e ra ll y sp e a k in g, t h e re ’s o n ly two peopl e the re . And i t bec omes a credi bil ity i ss ue betw een the v icti m and t he all eg ed per petrator

. And s o, you hav e to li ste n att enti v ely and I had the adv antag e of hear ing [D .F .] in the p re v iou s t ri al as w ell . Y ou woul d hav e to c o m e t o t h e co n c lu s io n t h a tt h is wa s a h u ge fa b ri c a t io n . An d yo u wo u ld h a ve to be uni mpres sed w it h the mul ti ple deta il s an d t h e c h ro nol og y of w hat occurred . And so, I’m going to fin d tha t, be y ond a reason able dou bt, Mr. Gue rrero, thatyou a re guilty of atte mp ted sex ual assau lt of a child. And I’mT h e a fo re m e n ti o n e d i n fo rm a ti o n w i th i n th i s p a ra g ra p h i s k n o w n to u s th ro u g h th e S ta te ’ s a p p e l l a te 3 bri ef, w hi c h i s su pp ort ed by G ue rr ero ’ s bri ef. 3 als o g oin g to find that y ou are g uil ty of two count s of i ndece ncy w it h a c hil d. T h e tri a l ju d ge t h e n pro n o u n ce d Gu e rre ro ’s p u n ish m e n t, st a ti n g: Hav ing found yo u gui lty of Count One, attempt ed sex ual as saul t of a c hil d, I’ m g oin g to sent ence y ou to f iv e y ears in the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Jus ti ce. And hav ing found y ou g uil ty of two c ounts of ind ecency w it h a c hil d, I’m going to assess pu nishm entat f iv e y ears for each coun t. A ll of these w ill ru n c oncur re nt. That i s t he order of the C our

t. After thi s p ro nounc ement, Guer re ro ’s defense couns el left t he c our thous e, an d the Stat e’s co unsel i nformed t he v ictim o f the v erdict and l eft the c our troom. Guer re ro w as take n out of the courtroo m and placed in the courth ouse ’s hold ing ce ll

. Ap proximate ly tw enty min utes l ater , t he tr ial j udg e c all ed Gu er re ro and the State’ s couns el back i nto t he cour troom. Atte mpts w ere made t o g et G uer re ro ’s d e fe n se couns el to retur n to the cour troom, buthi s c ounse l coul d notbe reache d. As a resul t, a former di str ict j udg e, w ho
w as found i n th e c ou rth ou s e, w as b rou g hti nt o th e c ou rtroo m t o s ta nd
- i n as G ue r rero’s defense c ounse l. The t ri al jud g e the n s tated the follo w ing on t he record: 3 Al l righ t. Mr. Guer re ro , g o ahead and sta nd. I t ry v er y hard to be com fortab le w ith the rulings tha t I ma ke. And af ter y ou lef

t the courtroo m it did n’tsi t well w it h me. So, I am g oin g to re v erse myr uli ng . And I am g oin g to find y ou notg uil ty

on C ounts One, Tw o, an d Three. I f in d that I hav e a re asona ble doubt

. By

preponderance of the ev ide nce, i f it w as a c iv il ca se, I woul dn’ t hav e a d oubt. Bu t I don’ t t hin k t here’s su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to ov ercome t he doub t th a t I hav e w it h reg ards to pe rh aps the v icti m w anti ng to be at you to the punch on t ell ing her si ste r ov er

w hat t ra nspi re d. So, that is the ru li ng . It is not g uil ty on C ounts One, Tw o, an d Three, Mr . G uer re ro . The Stat e di d notprotes t t his findi ng at tr ial

. The Stat e f il ed its notic e of appeal on July

17, 200 6, an d the court en tered a judgme nt of acquittal tw o da y s later. II. Prop erly

F ram in g th e Iss ue Before t hi s C ou rtT EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art

. 42

. 01 , § 1 (Ve rno n 2 00 6). 4 M i l c za n o w s k i

v . S ta te , 64 5 S

. W

. 2d 44 5, 44 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 83 ). 5 M c C u llo u g h v . S ta te , 720 S. W

. 2d 8 9, 90 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 198 3) ( quot i ng M i l cz anowski , 645 S. W

. 2d 6 at 44 7). 4 Ar ti cl e 42. 01 of the code of cr imina l p rocedure s tates thata t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment shoul d re flect “[t]he v erdict or v erdicts of t he jur y or the findi ng or findi ng s of t h e co urt.” 4 In a jur y tr ial , “t he w ri tten v erdict prov ide s the basi s for reformin g an e rroneous reci tati on in jud g ment and se ntenc e. In a bench tr ial the s tatementby the jud g e i n the record i s t he onl y co mpara ble s o u rce thatmay be c onsul ted t o l ear n the dec is ion of the factfinder .” 5 “A j udg ment or

se ntenc e may

onl y be re formed ‘ to c ause thos e i nst ru ments to reflectthe true f inding of

t he fact f inde r when such a f inding is ref lected in the verdict or, in a bench trial, the p rono unce me nt of the cou rt’s find ing.’” 6 The tr ial j udg e s tated on t he record tha t s he found Gu er re ro g uil ty , and thathe
w oul d hav e to ser

v e fiv e y ears i n pr is on. Att h a t m oment i n ti me, th ose sta tements cons ti tuted the cour

t’ s fin din g s a nd, a s suc h, dictated w hat t he c our t’ s e ntered j udg ment must re flect

. The tr ial jud g e, how ev er , l ater retract ed th e c our

t’ s e ar li er findi ng s b y

maki ng addi ti onal st atements on t he record, w hereupon the judg e found Guer re ro not g uil ty

. The cour t then entered a jud g ment reflect ing thi s l ater findi ng , as ar

ti cl e 42. 01 woul d s e e m to re q uire. Butdoe s article 42.0 1 de ma nd th at th e en tered ju d gm e n tr ef lect the trial j udge’s f inding of

not guilty , rathe r than th e judge’s previous f indin g o f g u il t ? Pe rhap s the m ore appropr iat e q uest ion i s t he foll ow ing : W hen doe s a tr ial j udg e s ur re nder hi s or her abi li ty to w it hdraw

a find ing of

gui lt ? Thi s l atter

q uest ion su cc inctl y

ca ptures the S tate’ s s ole i ss ueSt at e’ s Br i efat6. 7 Ex part e G eor

ge , 91 3 S

. W

. 2d 52 3, 52 6 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ). 8 I d. 9 I d. at 52 7 (em ph as i s ad de d). 10 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art

. 42

. 01 § 1 (7). 11 5 on appe al: “ W hether

a t ri al cour

t has the author ity

to sua sponte setas ide i ts findi ng of g uil ty after a be nch tr ial , pronounc ement of s entenc e, an d al l par ti es left t he c our

troom.” 7 III. The State ’s A ppeal is not Barred by Double Jeopardy “There i s a g ood dea l more to be sai d about the i nst ant c ause than that a j udg ment of acquittal w as ent ered b y t he trial jud ge b efore w e can know for su re w het her” the State ’s app eal raises a dou ble jeop ardy con cern. T his is becau se an accuse d w ill notbe subject 8 to do uble jeopa rdyunless th e accu sed was actu ally acq uitted. I n Ex par te G eor ge , t he 9
cour t of cr imi nal appeal s sta ted that the word “a cq uittal ” means “a findi ng of fact th at t he acc used is not g uil ty

of the cr im in a l offense w it h w hic h he is ch arg ed. And no t just any fi ndi ng of fac t either

. It is an o ffici al fac tfi ndi ng . . . .” W hether

or n o t th e j u d gm e nt of 10 acquittal in this case w as the produ ct of an “of f icial fa ctf inding” is the ve ry question this Court ha s bee n aske d to an sw er. If, as the State cont ends, the tr ial judg e w as bound byher ori g ina l findi ng of g uil t, then arti cl e 42. 01 prohi bit ed her from ent er ing a j udg ment of ac quittal

. D espi te 11 Gue rrero’s assertions to the con trary , any fa ilure by the trial court to com ply w ith article 42. 01 would result in a void judgmen t. As explained b y the cou rt of

criminal app eals: A trial court ma y

h ave jurisdiction t o act over a case, yet lack auth orityto act i n a parti cul ar

m a n n e r o v e r t h a tc a s e . . . . L a c ko f aut hority to act i n a par ti c ul ar ma nn er

ma y ren de r t he j ud g me nte i th er v oi d or

v oida bleSee Ex pa rt e Seidel , 3 9 S .W .3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 4
- 2 5 ( T e x . C r im . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itt e d ) ( e m p h a s is 12 i n o ri gi na l ).

S e e id

. 225. 13 Id

. ( quot i ng Ex part e Spaulding , 6 8 7 S .W .2 d 7 4 1 , 7 4 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (T e a g u e , J ., 14 c on c urri ng ))

.

S t ate’ s B ri ef a t 22 (em ph as i s ad de d). 15 6 dep end ing on the type of the error, ho w ever. Unau tho riz ed a cts (or errors) can be c haract er iz ed as ei ther “i ll eg al” or “i rreg ula r. ” “I ll eg al act s” are defined as “acts tha t are not aut horized by law .” On the oth er han d, “irreg ular acts” are defined as “ act s o r pract ic es that v a ry from the n or mal condu ct of an act ion .” W hil e a j udg ment is merel y “void abl e for ir re g ula ri ty ,” it is “void for il leg ali ty .” 12 I f t h e l a w

o n l y re c o g n i z e s t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s o r i g i n a l fi n d i n g o f g u i l t , t h e n t h e e n t r y o f a jud g ment of ac q uittal w as more than a v ar ian ce from the nor ma l condu ct presc ri bed by arti cl e 42. 01. Mo re ov er , t he tr ial j udg e’s acti on woul d be outs ide t h e parameters o f any ru le or procedu re i n pl ace at t hat t ime. I f so, the tri al ju dg e’s act of enter ing a j udg ment of acq uittal woul d be more than a mere v iol ati on of sta tutor y procedu re ; the a cti on woul d be unautho ri z ed by

l aw and, as su ch, woul d be v oid

. 13 The cour t of cr imi nal appeal s h as sta ted t hat “ ‘[ a] void j udg ment i s a nul li ty from the beg inn ing , and i s a ttend ed by none of the c onseq uence s o f a v ali d j udg ment. It is enti tl ed to no respect whatsoe v er beca use it do es no t af fect, im pair, or cre a t e l e gal r ights.’” 14 Therefore, i f Guer re ro ’s ac q uittal i s t he productof a v oid j udg ment, he c a n n o t use itto coun ter the State ’s appe al on do uble jeopa rdyg roun ds. W e f urthe r observe that th e Sta te’s a p pellat e brief conta ins the followi ng pray er: “[T] he St ate respectf ully requests tha t the orig inal judgme nt an d sen ten ce of the trial court be re ins tated and the sec ond v erdict on g uil t be treated as a nul li ty .” The S tate’ s p ra y er 15T he Uni t ed St at es Supr em e Cour t has hel d t hat t he Doubl e Jeo par dyC l ause bar s a post - acqui t t al 16 a p p e a l b y th e p ro s e c u ti o n n o t o n l yw h e n it m i g h t re s u l t i n a s e c o n d tri a l , b u t a l s o i f re v e rs a l w o u l d tra n s l a te i nt o f ur t herpr oceedi ngs o fsom e sor t , dev ot ed t o t he r esol ut i on o ff act ual i ssues g oi ng t o t he e l em ent s of t he o ff e n s e c h a rg e d

. S m a lis v . P e n n s ylv a n ia , 4 7 6 U .S . 1 4 0 , 1 4 5 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. N o n e o fth e s e r e s u lts w o u ld o c c u rif w e g ra n te d th e re l i e f s o u g h t b yth e S ta te

. T h e S ta te i s n o t a s k i n g th e C o u rt to a ff o rd i t a s e c o n d o p p o rtu n i ty t o r et r y G uer r er o, nori s i t aski ng t he Cour t t o r eassess f act ua l i s s ues g oi ng t o t he e l em ent s of t he o ff ense char ged agai nst G uer r er o.

S ee, e. g. , U nit ed St at es v. Aslam , 936 F. 2d 7 51, 754 ( 2d Ci r . 199 1) ( ci t i ng U n ite dS ta te s v . M a rtin 17 Linen Suppl

y C o. , 4 3 0 U .S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 0 (1 9 7 7 ); U nit ed St at es v. W i lson , 4 2 0 U .S . 3 3 2 , 3 5 2 -5 3 (1 9 7 5 )) ; U nit ed S ta te s v .F o rc e lla ti , 6 1 0 F .2 d 2 5 , 3 0 (1 s t C i r. 1 9 7 9 ); People v. Mink , 56 5 N

. E

. 2d 97 5, 98 1-8 2 (I l l

. 19 90 ); C om m onw ealth v. R aw les , 4 6 2 A .2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 1 (P a . 1 9 8 3 ); St at e v. Savage , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 0 ( T e x . C r im

. A pp . 19 96 ).

S e e id

. ar t

. 44. 01( a) ( 2) ( st at i ng t hat t he St at e i s ent i t l ed t o appea l an or der of a cour t i n a cr i m i nal 18 c as e i f t he orde r arr es t s or m od i fi es a j ud gm en t ). 7 has left this Court w ith tw o cho ices: it ma y reve rs e a n d h a ve the trial court esse ntially re ins tate it s o ri g ina ll y

rendered j udg ment of co nv ictio n , thus obl ig ati ng the cour t t o ent er a judg ment of co nv icti on, or i t ma y a ffi r m. N e i t h e r c h o i c e ra i s e s a d o u b le jeo pardy
conc er n. I n fact , federal and stat e courts hav e conti nual ly held that t he D oubl e J eopardy 16 Clau se i s not v iol ated by an a ppeal thatresul ts in re ins tatementof a j udg ment of conv icti on. 17 IV. Th e St at e’s R ig htt o A pp eal U nd er A rt icle 44.01 T he St ate conte nds th at it can app eal the t rial cou rt’s jud gmen t of a cquittal beca use the j udg ment c onst it utes ei ther the g ra nti ng of a new

tr ial , or a modi fied j udg ment. 18 W e reject th e Sta te’s con ten tion that it can a ppe al the trial court’s judgmen t beca use itco nst it utes the g ra nti ng of a moti on for new tr ial

. Thoug h thi s C our t and the cour

t of cr imi nal appeal s h av e l ibe ra ll y i nter preted the p ro v is ion , “ g ra nts a ne w tr ial ,” so as to al low the S tate to ap peal v ar iou s t ria l co u rtdecis ion s, thi s h as alway s o cc ur re d w hen t heSee Stat e v. Savage , 933 S. W

. 2d at 498- 500 ( per m i t t i ng St at e t o ap peal f r om def endan t ’ s m ot i on 19 fo r ju d g m e n t n o n o b s ta n te ve rd i c to (J N O V ) b y c o n s tru i n g i t a s th e g ra n ti n g o f a m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l , d e s p i te th e fa c t t h a t J N O V c o n s ti tu te d a n a c q u i tta l ); St at e v. Bat es , 889 S. W

. 2d 3 06, 310 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 4) ( per m i t t i ng St at e t o ap peal f r om def endan t ’ s “ M ot i on Regar di ng Conduc t o f T ri al ” byconst r ui ng i t as t he g ra n ti n g o f a m o ti o n f o r n e w tri a l ); St at e v. Evans , 843 S. W

. 2d 5 76, 577 - 78 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 2) ( per m i t t i ng St at e t o ap peal f r om def endan t ’ s “ M ot i on t o W i t hdr aw Pl ea o fN ol o Cont ender e” byconst r ui ng i t as t he g ra n ti n g o f a m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l ); S ta te v . G a rza , 7 7 4 S .W .2 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 6 ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 8 9 , p e t. ref’ d) (pe rm i tti n g S ta t e t o a pp ea l fr om de fen da nt’ s m oti on for m i s t ri al by co ns t rui ng i t as t he gran t i ng of a m oti on for ne w t ri al ).

I n St at e v. C ook , a ju ry fo u n d C o o k g u i l tyo f d rivin g w h i l e i n to x i c a te d

. N o. 13- 04- 533- C R , 200 6 T ex. 20 App. LEX I S 460, at* 1 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Jan. 19, 2006, no pet

. ) ( m em . op. , notdesi gnat ed f or publ i cat i on)

. T he t r i al cour t , howev er , setasi de t he j ur y ’ s v er di ct by si gni ng an “ O r deron I nst r uct ed Ver di ct (J .N .O .V .),” a n d e n te re d a ju d g m e n t f i n d i n g C o o k g u i l tyo f p u b l i c i n to x i c a ti o n , i n s te a d

. I d. T hi s C our t f ound t ha t the S t ate ha d t he ri gh t to a pp ea l the tr i al co urt ’ s ac t i on be c au s e “t he t ri al co urt ’ s orde r ef f ecti vel y m odif ied t he j ury verdi c t fr om gu i l t yof dri vi ng w hi l e i ntox i c ated (D W I ) t o no t g ui l t yo f D W I

. ” I d. at * 6 (em ph as i s ad de d).

I n St at e v. Ler

oy , a ju ry fo u n d L e ro yg u i l tyo f m i s d e m e a n o r a s s a u l t, a n d a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n t a t a fi n e o f “n o n e ” a n d a c o n fi n e m e n t p e ri o d o f “n o n e . ” N o . 0 5 -0 4 -0 0 2 6 0 -C R , 2 0 0 5 T e x . A p p . L E X I S 1 2 9 4 , a t *2 ( T ex. App. –D al l as F eb

. 1 7, 200 5, pet

. r ef ’ d) ( not desi gnat ed f orpub l i cat i on)

. T he t r i al cour t t hen si gned a j udgm ent sent enci ng Ler oy t o one day ’ s conf i nem ent and a one dol l arf i ne. I d. O n ap peal , t he St at e asse r t ed th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rr e d b ya c c e p ti n g a ju ry ve rd i c t t h a t c o n s ti tu te d n o p u n i s h m e n t. I d

. at * 1. T he St at e ba sed 8 defe n d a n ta c t u a lly raised some sort of mot ion. In the case at han d, no mot ions w ere

19 raised by either pa rty

prior to the trial judge revi sing her fin dings and pron oun cing Guerrero not g uil ty

. Mo re ov er , the jud g ment of acq uittal ca n hardly be c onst ru ed as the functi onal equiv alen t of

the granting of

a mo tion for new trial b ecau se the t rial cou rt d id notprevi ously enter a j udg ment of co nv icti on. W e do bel iev e, ho w ev er , t hat— if the tr ial co urt w as bound by i ts or ig ina l findi ng of guilt—then the St ate can ap pea l the trial court’s judgme nt of acquittal beca use it cons ti tutes a modi fied j udg ment. W e ar ri v e at thi s d eter minat ion r e cog niz ing thatthe record do es no t ref lect tha t the trial court f irst entere d a judg m e n t of conviction before it entered i ts jud g ment of ac q uittal

. Non ethel ess , t here are c ases in w hic h appel lat e c our ts hav e i nter preted a j udg ment as bei ng “ modified ” w hen i t fail ed to reflecta j ur y ’s v erdict, ev en th oug h the tr ial co urt onl y ente re d one jud g men t, a n d t h at j udg ment was nev er alt ered. I f a jud g ment c an be cons tr ued as modi fied w hen i t dep arts from a v erdict i n a

20i ts ri g h t t o a p p e a l o n th e a l l e g a ti o n th a t t h e tri a l c o u rt m o d i fie d a ju d g m e n t. I d

. at* 4. T he Dal l as Cour t of

Appeal s, i n ad dr essi ng t he St at e’ s ri ght t o appeal , st at ed: “T o t he ext ent t he t r i al cour t re nder ed a j udgm ent w h e n i t a c c e p te d th e ju ry’ s ve rd i c t o n p u n i s h m e n t, w e a g re e th a t t h e l a te r, w r it t en judgm ent

can be view ed as m odif

ying the i

nitial rendition . T hus, we ha v e j ur i sdi ct i on t o addr ess t he St at e’ s com pl ai nt s i nv ol v i ng t he fin a l , w rit te n ju d g m e n t.” I d

. at * 4-5 (em ph as i s ad de d; c i t ati on om i t t ed ).

See Stat e v. John son , N o. S 97 -10 -06 92 , 19 98 D el

. S up er. LE X I S 12 9, at *5-7 (D el

. S up er. C t

. A pr. 21 7, 1998) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al cour t coul d f i nd d ef endan t gui l t y , and sua sp ont e r econsi derand v acat e t he f i ndi ng b e fo re i t p ro n o u n c e d p u n i s h m e n t l a te r th a t d a y ); People v. H ut chinson , 5 6 9 N .W .2 d 8 5 8 , 8 5 9 -6 0 (M i c h . C t. App. 1997) (h ol di ng t hat t r i al cour t coul d no t f i nd d ef endan t gui l t y , and sua sp ont e re c o n s i d e r a n d re v e rs e i ts fin d i n g n i n e m o n th s l a te r, e v e n th o u g h i t d i d s o p r io r t o p r o n o u n c i n g p u n i s h m e n t); People v. Jone s , 512 N

. W

. 2d 2 6 ( M i ch. C t

. App. 199 3) ( hol di ng t ha t t r i al cour t coul d no t f i nd d ef endan t gui l t y , and s u a s p o n te rec on s i de r an d r eve rse i t s fi nd i ng ei gh t da y s l ater, eve n t ho ug h i t di d so pri or t o pron ou n c i n g pu ni s hm en t ); People v. C art er , 473 N

. E. 2d 6, 10- 11 ( N

. Y. 1984) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al cour t coul d no t f i nd d ef endan t gui l t y , and re v e rs e i ts fi n d i n g i n re s p o n s e to a J N O V m o ti o n , e v e n th o u g h th e c o u rt re v e rs e d i ts fi n d i n g p rio r to p ro n o u n c i n g s e n te n c e ); C om m on w ea l th v . S t ark , 5 8 4 A .2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 1 ( P a . 1 9 9 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t t r ia l c o u r t c o u ld not f i nd d ef endan t gui l t y , and sua sp ont e r econsi derand re v er se i t s f i ndi ng b ef or e i t pr onoun ced p uni shm ent l a te r th a t d a y ); C om m onw ealth v. Fi t t en , 65 7 A

. 2d 97 2, 97 3 (P a. S up er. C t

. 19 90 ) ( ho l di ng sa m e).

See H ut chinson , 5 6 9 N .W .2 d a t 8 6 0 (e x p re s s i n g d o u b l e je o p a rd yc o n c e rn ); Jones , 512 N

. W

. 2d a t 22 30 (ex pre s s i ng do ub l e jeo pa rdy an d p ub l i c po l i c yco nc ern s ). 9 j ur y t r i al , th en i t c an si mi l ar l y be co ns tr ue d as modi fi ed w he n i t pu r po s el y d ep ar ts from a f inding in a ben ch trial.

V. Could the Trial Judge A bandon the Finding of Guilt? On ap peal , G u e r re ro a s s e rt s t h a t a t r i a l c o u rt c a n c h a n g e i t s fi n d i n g o f g u i l t t o a findi ng of not g uil ty , after the cour t pronou nces punish ment, but no later than the ti me the cour t pronounc es puni shment and adj our ns for th at da y . Acc ordin g ly , Gu e rre ro as ser ts that the t ri al ju d ge co u ld f ind hi m not g uil ty bec ause she did so after puni shmentw as pronounc ed, b ut befor

e t h e co u rth a d a d jo u rn e d fo r t h e d a y. W e hav e found no cas e l aw from t his Sta te ex pli ci tl y suppor ti ng Guerrero’s pos it ion , and atte mp ts t o f in d g u id a nce f rom o the r states on ly rev eals case law

adverse to his cl aim. I n thi s cas e law , appel lat e cour ts hav e deni ed tr ial co urts the a uthor ity to abandon 21 a f inding of

g uilt beca use o f

dou ble jeo pard y

and p u b li cp olicy

conce rns, as w ell as a

22 bel ief tha t a jud g e s houl d not be abl e to abandon a pronounc ed f ind ing anym ore than heSee Cart er , 473 N

. E. 2d a t 11 & n. 3. 23L u n a v . S ta te , 70 S

. W

. 3d 35 4, 35 6 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , pe t

. ref’ d). 24Id

. at 36 1-6 2 (c i t ati on s om i t t ed ). 25B a rfie l dv . S ta te , 63 S

. W

. 3d 44 6, 44 9-5 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 20 01 ). 26 10 or sh e c an aban d on a jur y ’s v erdict. An d w hil e we hav e tak en th ese cas es int o

23 consid eratio n, th is Court’s ev alua tion o f the pro pri e ty of

Guerrero’s po sition is ultima tely pred icated upo n v arious ho ldings from the cou rt of criminal app eals. In Luna v

. St ate , Lun a ap pea led his con v iction to this Court, arguing that “a jury del ibe ra ti ng on p uni shmenthas the ri g ht t o r e consi der i ts deter minat ion of g uil t after hear ing addi ti onal ev ide nce dur ing the puni shmentphas e of the tr ia l. ” W e reje cte d 24 L u n a ’s a rgu m e n t o n th e ba sis th a t ju ry tria ls a re bi f u rca te d , s ta ti n g:

In T exas, c rim inal trials are bif urcate d into a guilt/innoce nce p hase and a pun ishm entpha s e . Article 37.07 auth oriz es the trial court to “f irst submi t t o the j ur

y the is sue of gu il t or

i nnoce nce of the defendant of the offense or

offenses ch arg ed, w it hout author iz ing the jur y to pass upon the puni shmentto be i mposed. ” If a findi ng of g uil ty i s retur ned, a s eparate hear ing i s h eld at w hic h ev ide nce re lev ant to puni shmentmay be i ntroduce d by the Stat e and by the defendant. Puni shment is then ass ess ed by the tr ial c o u rto r, if

t h e d e fe n d a n th a s so e le ct e d , b y t h e ju ry. The Leg is lat ure c lea rl y i ntended “ dete rm inati on of g uil t” and “a ss ess ment of pu n ishm ent” to be two s eparate p ro ceedi ng s. Itmade no prov is ion for a recons ide ra ti on of the deci si on on g uil t, after the p uni shment phase has beg un. Adopti ng [Luna’ s] int er pretati on . . . woul d ne gat e the sy stem of

bif urcatio n clearly inten ded bythe Le gisl atu re, and would in ef fect transfo rm t h e de term inatio n of g uilt and pun ishm entinto a single p ro ce e d in g. 25 T he co urt of

crim inal app eals has held , howev er, tha t the b if urcatio n statu te ap plies on ly t o p le a s o f

n o tgu il ty bef

ore a jury ; it h a s n o a p p li c a t io n t o a p le a o f n o tgu il ty befor

e a t ri al court

. The c our

t has thus hel d tha t a tr ial j udg e may co nti nue t o c ons id e r ev ide nce on 26S e e id

. a t 4 5 1 ; J o n e s v . S ta te , 53 2 S

. W

. 2d 59 6, 59 7 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 76 ). 27 B a r fie ld , 63 S. W

. 3d a t 451

. 28 A gu i lera , 165 S. W

. 3d 6 95. 29 Id

. at698

. 30 11 the i ss ue of g uil t after

i t has pronounc ed i ts findi ng of g uil t. Thi s i s b ecaus e “ the d eci si on 27 of the [t ri al] co urt i n a u nit ar y tr ial i s n ot fixed unt il i t renders jud g ment on g uil t and puni shmentafter

al l the e v ide nce and arg uments hav e been heard.” 28 If a trial court retain s the power to con sider new ev iden ce in supp ort of its prev iously pronounc ed find in g o f

guil t, then itmustal so re tai n the abi li ty to recon sider evidence admitted p ri or

to the c our

t’ s p ro nounc ement. Al low ing a t ri al cour t t o c onsi der

new ev ide nce and recons ide r prev iou sl y admi tted ev ide nce is a meanin g les s p re ro g ati v e, how ev er , i f the c our

t has no a uthor ity

to re v is iti ts findi n g o f gu ilt

. Acc ordin g ly , t he prerog ati v e to cont inu e ev alu ati ng ev ide nce of gu il t, after a findi ng of g uil t, must mean tha t a tr ial co urt has the author ity to sec ond g uess it s findi ng , and re v is e it by a findi ng of not g uil ty i f the i nterest s o f jus ti ce so re q uire. But can a tr ial courtrev is e its f ind ing of g uil t afte r ithas pronounc ed puni shment ? Rel y ing on the c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s’ hol din g i n Sta te v. Ag uilera , Gue rrero answers 29 thi s q uest ion i n the aff ir mati v e. In Agu ilera , the court he ld tha t once a t rial court pronounc es puni shment , t he c our t “ re tai ns ple nar

y power to modify it s sent ence if

. . . t he mo dif ication is made on the same day as the assessm entof the initial sent ence and before the c our t adj our ns for th e day

. The re- sent enci ng mustbe d one i n the presenc e o f the defendant, his attor ney , and c ounse l for th e s tate. ” G uer re ro thus co ntends thata t ri al 30
cour t’ s p len ar

y power ov er i ts findi ng of g uil t ex pires at t he s ame ti me i t l oses i ts pow er toJ o n e s v . S ta te , 797 S. W

. 2d 3 3, 34 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 0) ( C l i nton , J

. , d i s s ent i ng) ( “ W her e t he 31 is s u e o fp u n is h m e n t is r e f e r r e d to th e ju r y, its v e r d ic t is n o t c o m p le te u n til th e ju r y r e n d e r s a v e r d ic t o n g u ilt and assesses puni shm ent

. So a l so a f i ndi ng o fgui l t by t he cour t i n a bench t r i al wi t houtan assessm ent of puni shm ent i s nota conv i ct i on. ” ) ( ci t i ng F a u rie v . S ta te , 5 2 8 S .W .2 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 5 ); W oods v . S ta te , 53 2 S

. W

. 2d 60 8, 60 9, n.1 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 76 ))

.

A gu i lera , 165 S. W

. 3d a t 698

. 32 Iti s i m p o rta n t t o n o te th a t t h e p o w e r to a b a n d o n a fi n d i n g o f g u i l t d o e s n o t e n ta i l th e p o w e r to 33 a b a n d o n a fi n d i n g o f n o t g u i l ty , fo r th e l a tte r a c t i s b a rr e d b yd o u b l e je o p a rd y . S e e S m a lis , 476 U

. S. at145 ; Kepner v. U nit ed Stat es , 19 5 U

. S

. 10 0, 13 0 (19 04 ). See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art

. 44

. 01 (a). 34 12 modify a s entenc e. W e ag re e. A j udg ment i n a b ench tr ial ca nnot be frag mented ( i. e., conv icti on and puni shment canno t ex is t i ndependen tl y of each other ). Acc ordin g ly , a tr ial cour t’ s ple nar

y power to 31 chan ge punish me nt con stitute s t h e p o we r to chan ge the judgm entin its entirety. As a result, a co urt retain s the aut hority to change its f inding of g uilt. Sho uld a trial court ele ct to c hange its fin din g of g uil t, how ev er , i t mus t und oubtedl y foll ow the same p ro cedural re q uirements ar

ti cul ated in Agu ilera : th e c h a n ge must be “ done i n the presenc e of the defend ant , his atto rney, and coun sel for the Sta te.” In Guerrero’s case, the trial court 32 suf f iciently com plied wi th th ese requirem ent s. VI. Conclus ion Beca use the t ri al cour

t c hang ed i ts findi ng of g uil t after pronounc ing puni sh m e nt, but b efor

e theco ur

t had adj our ned f or the day, we f in d t h a t th e court ’s j udg ment of acq uittal i s v ali d, rather than v oid

. M oreov er , bec ause th e t ria l ju dg e had the p ow er to 33 chang e her

reason ed findi ng of g uil t to not g uil ty , w e re ject t he St ate’ s c ontent ion thatthe tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment of ac q uittal co nst it utes a modi fied j udg ment. As a re sul t, w e find that the S t a t e h a s n o r i g h t t o a p p e a l , a n d t h a t i t s a p p e a l mu s t b e d i s mi s s e d fo r w ant o f 3413

jur is dicti on.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Con cur ri ng Opi nio n by

Ju sti ce Vel a. Do not p ubl is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this the 2 5th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 8.