### NUM BER 13-06- 0029 8-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 DI NBURG
EUG ENE M ERC IER, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 32n d Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s This ca se is before us for the sec ond t ime. See State v. Mercier, 164 S.W .3d 7 99 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi 2005 , pet . ref ’d). In the first app eal, we reversed the trial court’s
order g ra nti ng Mer ci er ’s m oti on for newtri al and render ing a j udg ment of ac q uit tal bas ed
o n i n su f f ici e n t ev ide nce. See i d. at 823. W e remanded t o the tr ial co urt for entr y ofT h e p ro c e d u ra l h i s to ry o f th i s c a s e , a s w e l l a s th e fa c ts , w e re s e t fo rth i n o u r firs t o p i n i o n
. St at e v. 1 M erc i er, 164 S. W

. 3d 799 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 5, pet

. r ef ’ d)

. W e wi l l not r epeat t hem her e exce pt to e x p l a i n th e b a s i c re a s o n s fo r o u r h o l d i n g
. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1, 47. 4.

M er ci er ar gues t hat t he t ri al c ou rt e rr ed by ov er r ul i ng t he f ol l owi ng m ot i ons, al l r ai si ng t he sa m e 2 ar gum ent s: ( 1) hi s app l i cat i on f or a pr et r i al wr i t of hab eas co r pus; ( 2) hi s m ot i on t o r econsi der t he d eni al of h is a p p lic a tio n f o r a p r e tr ia l w r it o f h a b e a s c o r p u s ; ( 3 ) h is m o tio n to a c q u it b a s e d o n lim ita tio n s ; a n d ( 4 ) h is r enewal of

t he m ot i on t o acq ui t base d on l i m i t at i ons. T he St at e do es no t di sput e t hat t hese m ot i ons a nd ru l i n g s p re s e rv e d M e rc i e r’s i s s u e fo r o u r re v i e w . 2 jud g ment in acc ordance w it h the j ur y ’s v erdict. Id. The tr ial courtrendered a jud g ment of conviction for

c o n s p iracy

to com mit ba rratry , and it senten ced Mercier to two y ears’ confine ment, sus pended the s entenc e for fiv e y ears and i mposed communi ty su per v is ion , and i mposed a f ine of

$7,500. Thereafter , upon Mer ci er ’s m oti on, the t ri al cour t reduce d the sente nce to six

mon ths in a sta te jail facility , sus p end ed th e sen ten ce for tw o y ears, and impo sed a f ine of $7, 500

. Mercier has now app eale d, asse rting nume rous errors in the trial court, and the Sta te has f iled a cross-app eal cha llenging the reductio n in Mercier’s sent ence. Be caus e w e find that the i ndi ctmentw as fatall y defecti v e, w e rev erse and
re nder j udg ment di smi ss ing the prosec uti on. 1 I. L I MI TA TI ONS By his f irst fo ur issues, Mercier argues thatthe trial court erred byden y ing his
v ar iou s mot ion s t o di smi ss bas ed on the s tatut e o f l imi tati ons. O n M ar ch 21, 2 000, a

2 g ra nd j ur

y first indic ted M er ci er

on tw o c ounts of cons piracy to commi t bar ra tr

y . The ind ic tment all eg ed th at t h e c rimes oc cur re d on or about Sept ember

30, 1997. On Dec ember

19, 2001, Me rc ier

w as re- ind ic ted for

the same off enses . Then on D ecember 21, 2 001, the S tate dis mis sed the first ind ic tment. Me rc ier arg ues that the a ppl ic abl e l imi tati ons sta tute re q uired th at t he ind ic tment be pr esent ed w it hin three y ears a fter t he dat e of the commi ss ion of the o ff ense. See T EX
.3

P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 38.12( f) ( Ver non 200 3) ; T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 12.01( 6) (V er non Su pp. 2 008) ( prov idi ng ca tch -a ll l imi tati ons per iod of three y ears for feloni es not
e x p r e s s l y

l i s ted) ; id. ar

t. 12.03( b) ( Ver non 200 5) ( “The li mita ti on per iod for c ri minal consp iracy

or org anized crim in a l a c t iv ity is the sam e as tha t of

the m ost seriou s of

fense that is the obj ectof the c onspi ra cy or the org ani z ed cr imi nal ac ti v it y .” ). H e reason s t hat t he li mita ti ons per iod ex pired on Oct ober 1, 2000, and he cal cul ates thatdate by ex cl udi ng the date of the offense and the d ate o f the i ndi ctment

. See i d. art. 12. 04 (Ve rnon 200 5). Al thoug h M er ci er

recog niz es that the t im e t h at an i ndi ctmenti s p endi ng i s n ot i ncl uded
w hen c alc ula ti ng the li mita ti ons per iod , see id. art. 12.05( b) (V er non 2005) , he arg ues that this is a “tolling” provi sion th at m ust be plead ed wi thin any subse quent indictme nt. Thu s, becau se the sec ond indi ctmentpleaded an of fense that w as outs ide the li mita ti ons per iod and did notplead the to lling provisi on, the i n d ict me nt w as fata lly def ective, and he is enti tl ed to a di smi ss al of the prosec uti on. T he St ate doe s not disp ute t hatthe th ree-year li mita tions p eriod ap plies. How ever, the S tate arg ues that the s econd i ndi ctmentw as p roper ly w it hin the li mita ti ons per iod becau se li mita ti ons w as tol led from M ar ch 21, 2 000, whe n t h e first ind ic tment w as pr esent ed, u nti l Dec ember 19, 2001, w hen t he s econd i n d ict m e n t w as pr esent ed. In i ts br ief, t he St ate d is puted that itw as req uired to plead i ts re li ance on to ll ing factors w it hin the
sec ond i ndi ctment

. Fi rs t, w e note that the State appears to arg ue that becaus e Mer ci er rai sed thi s i ss ue in the p ri or

appeal and w e di d notaddress i t, the issu e m u st l a ck mer itor i s s omehow bar re d from ou r cons ide ra ti on. W e di sag re e. In t he pr ior appeal , t he St ate a ppeal ed th e tr ial court ’s determi nati on th at t he v erdic t w as based on i nsuffici ent e v ide nce. Mercier, 1644

S.W .3d a t 805

. Al thoug h the tr ial co urt al so is sued “c ondi ti o n a l” o rd ers a ddr ess ing Me rc ier ’s othe r arg uments i n the ev ent o f f uture appea ls , i ncl udi ng thatthe prosec uti on
w as bar re d by

limi tati ons, w e held that the tri al cour t w as w it hout pow er

to is sue condi ti onal
orders a ft er

g ra nti ng a j udg ment of ac q uit tal

. Id. at 81 1- 12. Acc ordin g ly , w e di d not address M e rci er ’s arg uments reg ardin g l imi tati ons. Id. F urther more, al thoug h M er ci er raised cross-po ints in the prior app eal, he w as un der no obligation to do so be cause there
w as no j udg men t o f

c o n v ic ti on ag ain st him, nor co uld there be an appe ala ble j udg ment unti l the t ri al cour

t det er mined his se ntenc e on re mand. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 44.02 (V er non 200 6) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2( a) (“ The tr ial cour t shal l enter

a c erti ficat ion of the de fend ant 's ri ght of app eal ea ch time it enters a judgm ent o f gui lt o r other app eala ble orde r. ”) ( emphasi s a dded) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 21.3( h) ( sta ti ng defendant must be g ra nted a new tr ial if the v erdic t is cont ra ry to the law and the e v ide nce) ; see als o Abbo tt
v. State , 271 S.W .3d 695, 696- 96 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2008) ( hol din g st andard for deter mini ng appel lat e j ur isd ict io n i s w hether appeal i s a uthor iz ed by l aw , and g enerall y , a cr imi nal d e f endant mayonl y

appeal a fina l jud g ment of co nv ic ti on) ; cf. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .2( b) (req uir ing appel lee to ra is e cros s- poi nts w hen tri al cour t grants judg ment notw it hst andi ng the v erdict, and stating tha t failure to raise such cross po ints w aives the issue). For these
reaso ns, th is issue is not barred byour prior opinion and is properly before us. Sta tute s of

limitation s w ere on ce con sidered jurisdictional in nat ure; thu s, the failure to pl ead and prov e a t oll ing prov is ion i n order to sav e an ind ic tment that, on i ts face, w as bar re d by

l imi tati ons, w as fatal t o the i ndi ctment

. See C ooper v. Sta te , 527 S.W .2d 5 63, 565 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1975) , over ruled by Pr

octor v. Sta te , 9 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 3 (T e x.M e r c ie r f ile d a s u p p le m e n ta l a p p e lla n t’s b r ie fs h o r tly b e f o r e o r a l a r g u m e n t in th is c a s e , n o tif yin g th is 3 C our t of t he Ti t a d e c i s i o n
. T h e S ta te h a s m o v e d to s tri k e th i s b rie f, a rg u i n g th a t M e rc i e r fa i l e d to o b ta in p e rm i s s i o n to fi l e h i s s u p p l e m e n ta l b rie f a n d th a t t h e b rie f d o e s n o t c o m p l y w ith t h e r u l e s o f a p p e l l a te pr ocedur e be cause i t doe s not hav e a t abl e of cont ent s or a t abl e ofaut hor i t i es. Fi r st , we no t e t hat t he b r i ef does, i n f act , cont ai n a t abl e of cont ent s and a t abl e of aut hor i t i es
. M ore i m po r t ant l y , howev er , t he suppl em ent al br i efm er el y br i ngs t o ou r at t ent i on a change i n t he l aw si nce t he f i l i ng o ft he o r i gi nal br i ef s, whi ch cou l d ha v e be en m er el y i ncl uded i n a l et t er br i ef t o t hi s C our t

. W e woul d be r equi r ed t o con si der t he ne w la w r a i s ed i n t he su pp l em en t al bri ef e ven i f i t ha d n ot be en brou gh t t o o ur att en t i on by M erc i er. Accor di ngl y , we de ny t he St at e’ s m ot i on a nd wi l l consi der t he br i ef

. W e not e t hat at or al ar gum ent , we gr ant ed t he St at e l eav e t o f i l e a suppl em ent al br i efadd r essi ng t he r ecent chan ges i n t he l aw. T he St at e ha s not don e so. 5 Cr im. App. 1998) . Later , how ev er , t he Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls hel d tha t a sta tute of limitation s is a “ proce dura l rule, in the na ture of a def ense , tha t w as en acte d ba sically for the b ene f it of

def end ant s and not th e Sta te.” Pr octor , 967 S.W .2d a t 843

. In an unpubl is hed dec is ion rely ing on thi s prec edent, w e held t hat t he St ate w as not req uired to ple ad to ll ing factors i n an ind ic tment. Sta te v. Pla mb e ck , Nos. 13-0 2-49 2-CR, 13- 02- 493-CR, 2007 W L 17062 49, a t * 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju n. 14 , 200 7, pe t. ref ’d) (not designat ed for pub lication). After the p arti es filed thei r br iefs in thi s a ppeal , how ev er , t he Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appeal s h eld that the Stat e must ple ad it s re li ance on a tol li ng prov is ion i f the i ndi ctment doe s n ot de monstrate o n i ts face thatthe cr ime all eg ed oc cur re d w it hin the li mita ti ons per iod

. See T

it a v . St ate , 267 S.W .3d 3 3, 37 -3 8 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

. The c our t reli ed 3
on ar ti cl e 21. 02( 6) of the Tex as Cod e o f C rim ina l Procedu re , w hic h req uires that an ind ic tment ind ic ate o n i ts face thatthe prosec uti on is not b ar re d by l imi tati ons. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 21.02( 6) ( Ver non 200 9) ; Tita , 267 S.W .3d at 37. The cour t furt her hel d that under arti cl e 27.08( 2) , a defendant mayobjectto the s ubst ance of an i ndi ctment and obt ain di smi ss al of the i ndi ctment , i f “‘ itappears from the face the reof that a prose cution for the o f

fense is barred by a lapse of time. ’” Tita , 267 S.W .3d a t 37 (q uoti ng6

T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 27. 08(2 ) (Vern on 200 6)). App ly ing bo th th ese sta tute s, the cour t hel d that in order to av oid di smi ss al, the Stat e mustpl ead any tol li ng factors t o prevent the indictm entf rom giv ing the app eara nce tha t the p rosecu tion is b arred by a lapse of time. Id. at 38. Beca use the Stat e faile d to pl ead i ts re li ance on th e tol li ng prov is ion , t he
cour t hel d tha t t he tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing Tit a’s moti on to di smi ss the prosec uti on. Tita i s d irect ly

on p oin t. Id. Be caus e the Sta te fail ed to pl e a d i ts rel ian ce on th e tolling p rov ision w hen it present ed th e seco nd ind ictme nt againstMercier, the trial court
er re d i n deny ing M er ci er ’s moti ons to di smi ss the prosec uti on. Tit a, how ev er , s ug g est s that thi s may

not be th e end of the i nq uir y . In Tita , t he c our

t of cr imi nal appeal s h eld thatTit a had rais ed a defect of “ subs tanc e” in the indi ctment

. Id. Y et, upon find ing thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing Tit a’s moti on to dis mis s and that the courtof appeals err ed i n aff ir ming thatdeni al, the cour t remanded to th e cou rt of

app eals “for a harm ana ly sis unde r Texas R u le o f A p pellat e Proce dure 44. 2(b).” Id. The c our

t c it ed bot h Tex as Rul e of A ppel lat e Procedu re 44.2( b) and a s ect ion of Di x and Daw son’ s Cr imi nal Pract ic e and Procedu re
. Id. (c it ing G. D I X & R. D A W S ON , 41 T EX AS P RA CTI CE : C R I M I N AL P R A C TI C E A ND P R O C EDU R E § 21 .14 7 (2nd ed. 20 01)). The
cour t’ s c it ati on to R ule 44.2 (b ) and t o D ix and Daw son, w h ile s im ple i n i tse lf, c re ates subs tanti al confusi on. The le g is lat ur e has cl ass ified defects i n an ind ic tment as eit her defects of form or d e fe c t s o f s u b s t a n c e. T EX
. C O D E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 27.08 (l is ti ng defects ofT hat sect i on p r ov i des: 4 T h e re i s n o e x c e p ti o n to th e s u b s ta n c e o f a n i n d i c tm e n t o r i n fo rm a ti o n e x c e p t: 1. T hat i t does not appea r t her ef r om t hat an off ense agai nst t he l aw was com m i t t ed b y th e d e fe n d a n t; 2. T hat i t appea r s f r om t he f ace t her eof t hat a pr osecut i on f or t he off ense i s bar r ed b y

a l a p s e o f t i m e , o r t h a t th e o ff e n s e w a s c o m m i tte d a fte r t h e fin d i n g o f th e i n d i c tm e n t; 3. T hat i t cont ai ns m at t er whi ch i s a l egal def ense or bart o t he p r osecut i on; and 4. T ha t i t s ho w s up on i t s fac e t ha t t he c ou rt t ry i ng t he c as e ha s no j uri s di c t i on t he reo f. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 27

. 08 (Ve rno n 2 00 6).

T hat sect i on p r ov i des: 5 Except i ons t o t he f or m ofan i ndi ct m ent or i nf or m at i on m ay be t aken f or t he f ol l owi ng ca uses o n ly: 1. T hat i t doe s not app ear t o ha v e be en pr esent ed i n t he p r oper cour t as r equi r ed b y l aw ; 2. T he want of

any r equi si t e pr escr i bed by Ar t i cl es 21

. 02 a nd 2 1. 21. 3

. T h a t it w a s n o t r e tu r n e d b y a la w f u lly c h o s e n o r e m p a n e le d g r a n d ju r y. I d. art

. 27

. 09 (Ve rno n 2 00 6).

7 subst ance ); id. ar

t. 27.09 (V er non 200 6) ( li sti ng d e f e cts of form). I t has prov ide d tha t 4 5 “[ a]n i ndi ctmentsh all not be hel d i nsuffici ent, nor sh all the tr ial , j udgm ent o r other proce edin gs the reon be af fecte d, by reaso n of any def ect of form which does n ot preju dice the substa ntial rights of the de fend ant .” See i d. art. 2 1

. 1 9 ( V erno n 20 09) (em pha sis added)

. Appl y ing thi s s tatut or

y sc heme for re v iew

of defects of form, t he Texa s Co u rt of Cr imi nal Appea ls has hel d tha t a defect of form i s n ot g ro unds for rev ersal unl ess the defect i tse lf preju dic ed th e defendant’ s s u b stanti al ri g hts

. See A dam s v . St ate , 707 S.W .2d 900, 903 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1986)

. The Ada m s court he ld tha t the app licable ha rm8

ana ly sis inv olves three step s: The first ste p i n ans w er ing thi s q uest io n i s t o dec ide w hether the charg ing ins tr u m e n t fail ed to co nv ey so me r eq uis it e i tem of "noti ce. " I f suff ic ien t noti ce is g iv en, t his ends our i nq uir y . If n o t, t h e n e xt ste p i s t o dec ide w het her, in th e con text of the case , t h is had an imp act on the de fend ant 's abi li ty to pr epare a d efense, a nd, fin all y , how g re at an i mpact. Id. Later , the court of cri minal appeals hel d tha t t he Ada m s anal y si s d oes not a ppl y to appel lat e rev iew

of defects of subs tanc e. Jacks on v . St ate , 7 1 8 S

. W

. 2 d 7 2 4 , 7 2 5 n
. 1 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1986)

. It sta ted: Beca use w e ar e not deal ing w it h a noti ce defect, but ar e ins tead deal ing w it h the issue of

wheth er t he informa tion in th is cause act ually state s the of fense of ev adi ng ar re st, w e need not c once rn ourse lv es w it h thi s C our t' s recent d e c i s i o n s o f Adam s v

. St ate , 707 S.W .2d 9 00 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1986) , and Opdahl v. Sta te , 705 S.W .2d 697 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p.1 986 ). Id. In Jacks on , t he c our t rev ersed a c onv ic ti on bas ed on a defect of subs tance i n the ind ic tment w it hout condu cti ng a ha rm anal y si s. See i d. at 72 7. So m e c o u rt s fo llo wing Jacks on hav e ei ther ( 1) ex pr ess ly

hel d tha t a defect of subst ance is reversible, and harm f ul, pe r se, or (2 ) a ssum ed th at no harm ana ly sis is
re q uired w hen t he i ndi ctme n t co n tains a defect of subs tanc e and hav e rev ersed w it hout
re q uir ing a s how in g of har m. See T hom pson v. State, 2 1 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 7 1 , 1 8 3 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th Di st. ] 2001, no pet .) ( “C onseq uentl y , w her e the Sta te fail s t o amend an i ndi ctmental leg ing a re q uis it e mental st ate, and t he defendant ti mely obj ect s t o the omis si on, t he tr ial co urt' s fai lure to q uash the indi ctmenthas been, and sti ll i s, treated as er ror har mf ul under

any har m anal y si s, i. e. rev ersi ble per se .” ); Sanc hez

v. Sta te , 32 S.W .3d 6 87, 6 99 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2000) , over ru led on other

gr ounds , 120 S. W .3dI n S a n c h e z , t he San Ant oni o Cour t of Appeal s not ed t hat i n V e l a v . S ta te , t hi s C our t app l i ed t he 6 Adam s ana l y si s t o a def ect i v e i ndi ct m ent t hat f ai l ed t o al l ege an e l em ent of t he ch ar ged off ense See 32 S .W .3 d 6 8 7 , 7 0 0 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 0 ), o v e rr u l e do n o th e r g ro u n d s , 1 2 0 S .W .3 d 3 5 9 (T e x . C r im

. App. 200 3) ( ci t i ng V e l a v . S ta te , 7 7 6 S .W .2 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 4 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 8 9 , n o p e t.)). Sanchez and D i x and D awson no t e t hat t hi s i s act ual l y a def ect of subst ance t hat woul d no t r equi r e a har m ana l y si s, b u t s ta te th a t th i s C o u rt c h a ra c te rize d i t a s a d e fe c t o f f o rm
. See i d. ; G. D I X & R. D AW SON , 41 T EX AS P RA CT I CE : C R I M I N AL P RA CT I CE A ND P RO CED UR E § 2 1.14 7 (2n d e d. S up p. 20 08 ). W e n ee d n ot de t erm i ne w he t he r V e la c o rr e c tl y c h a ra c te rize d th e d e fe c t a s o n e o f f o rm o r s u b s ta n c e , a s t h a t is s u e is n o t n o w b e fo re th e C o u rt. W het her cor r ect or i ncor r ect , t hi s C our t char act er i z ed t he d ef ect as one off or m , f r am i ng t he i ssue a s a “no t i ce” i ssue, and , nev er t hel ess, pr oper l y app l i ed A d a ms ’ s h a rm a n a l y s i s to th e fo rm d e fe c t. V e l a , 776 S .W .2 d a t 7 2 4

.

S e e a ls o F l o re s v . S ta te , 102 S

. W

. 3d 3 28, 333 ( T ex. App. –East l and 2003, pet

. r ef ' d) ( hol di ng t hat 7 def ec t a l l eg ed w as o ne o ff or m , but st at i ng, i n di ct a, t hat i t woul d ap pl y sam e ha r m ana l y si s t o de f ect of s u b s ta n c e ).
9 359 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2003) ; Bur les on v . St ate, 935 S.W .2d 526 , 529 (Tex. App. –W aco 1996, no pet .) , over

ru led on o ther gr ounds , St

ate v . M ason, 98 0 S. W .2 d 63 5 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1998) ; see als o G. D I X & R. D A W S ON , 41 T E X AS P RA CTI CE : C R I M I N AL P RA CTI CE A ND P R OC EDU R E § 20. 42 ( 2nd ed. Supp. 2008) ( “A n err o neous fail ur e to sus tai n an obj ect ion
ra is ing a de fect of sub sta nce apparentl y req uires automati c rev ersal reg ardle ss of w hether the a ppel lan t w as har me d .” ). O ne ot her co urt, how ev er , has hel d tha t Tex as Rul e of 6 Appel lat e Procedu re 44.2 (b ) coul d be appl ied to re v iew o f a d e f e ct of subs tanc e. See Tol lett v . St ate, 219 S.W .3d 593 , 600 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 20 07, pet. ref ’d). 7 The probl em w it h appl y ing Ru le 4 4.2( b) to defects of subs tanc e i s t hat s uch an app lication se em s to re n d e r a rt icle 21.1 9 me anin gless, g iv en th at Rule 44 .2(b) w ould prov ide the same rev iew for d efects of subs tanc e as for d efects of for m. R ule 44.2 (b ) sta tes thata no ncons ti tuti onal er ro r “t hat d oes not a ff ectsu b st a nti al ri g hts mustbe disregarded .” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2( b)

. For ex ample, appl y ing R ule 44.2 (b ) to a defect of subs tanc e, t he Tex ar kana Cou rtof Appeal s focused on w hether the i ndi ctmentprov ide d suffici ent n oti ce to al low the defendant t o prepare hi s d efense, w hic h i s e x act ly the sor t of10

re v iew that Jacks on reje cte d w hen i t s tated that A da ms doe s n o t a p p ly to defects of subs tanc e. Jacks on, 718 S. W .2d a t 725 n.1; Tol lett , 219 S. W .3d a t 600

. To further

co mpound t he c onfusio n, i n Ti ta , t he c our

t of cr imi n a l a p p eal s c it ed a section of

Dix and Daw s on’s Crimina l Practice and Proced ure to s uppor t t he proposi ti on that a harm ana ly si s s houl d be condu cte d. See T it a , 267 S.W .3d a t 38 (c it ing G. D I X & R. D A W S ON , 41 T EX AS P RA CTI CE : C R I M I N AL P RA CTI CE A ND P R OC EDU R E § 21.147 (2n d ed. 2001 )). T h e 2001 edi ti on of D ix and Daw son, ci ted b y the cour

t, dis cus ses the A da ms anal y si s for har m ar is ing from a defect of for m. G. D I X & R. D A W S ON , 41 T EX AS P RA CTI CE : C R I M I N AL P RA CTI CE A ND P R OC EDU R E § 21. 147 ( 2nd ed. 2001)

. It s ta tes thatthe basi s for the Ada m s ru le makes i t c lea r that the “Adams rule doe s not ap ply if the cha rg ing defect
w as on e of

substa nce, ” and no tes that this w as con f irmed by the cou rt of

criminal app eals in Jacks on. Id. Di x and Daw son sta tes that “[w]hen an appe ll ate c our t finds thatthe tr ial
c ou rt er r ed i n rej ec ti ng a d efe nd an t’ s c l ai m t ha t th e c ha rg i ng i ns tr um en t s uffers from a defect of s ubst ance, both pr e-A da ms l aw and Jacks on a ssum e tha t no h armle ss error r ule app lies. Th erefore, reversa l is a u t om atic.” Id. Thus , D ix and Daw son appears t o recogniz e tha t no ha rm an alysi s app lies. In a foot not e, how ever, Dix and Daw son n ote s that“[t]his is not a ne cessary result . . . . Error in ov erruling a challenge ba sed o n a de fect of su bsta nce might be held subject to t he g eneral har mles s e rror r ule i n [Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedure 4 4 .2 (b )] .” I n another footnote, D ix

and Daw son notes that “[ t]he cour ts’ ass umpti on has als o been that error in reject ing a challen ge to a charging instrum entbase d on a def ect of substa nce is not s ubj ectto the g eneral har mles s e rror anal y si s a s reflect ed i n the R ule s o f Appell ateT h e 2 0 0 7
- 2 0 0 8 S u p p le m e n t is s u e d in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 d o e s n o t r e f le c t t h is c h a n g e , b u t it is a v a ila b le 8 i n th e e l e c tro n i c u p d a te s p u b l i s h e d o n W e s tl a w a t 4 1 T X P R A C § 2 1 .1 4 7

. 11 Proced ure.” Id. I t not es that thi s q uest ion has been left “ open,” al thoug h thi s s tatement appears i ncons is tent w it h i ts pr ior st atement that re v ersal i s a utomati c. Id. Di x and Daw son then sur mis es that “[ p]er haps the cas e law cu lmi nati ng i n Jacks on
w as simp ly

incorrect, an d article 21 .19 doe s n o t i n f act ad d an ything to the ana ly sis app licable to dete rmine w hen error consisting of ov erruling a motio n to quash for a def ect of substa nce requires rev ersal of a conviction.” Id. H ow ev er , i t g oes on to note thatthe difficul ty i n appl y ing a ha rml ess er ro r anal y si s t o defects of sub st a n ce is how to
conc eptual iz e the er ro r, noti ng that A da ms al ters t he g eneral har mles s e rror anal y si s t o focus o n the form defecti tse lf, rather than on t he tr ial j udg e’s ac ti on. Id. In s um, th e c our

t of cri minal appeal s i n Tita ci ted t o a s ect ion of Di x and Daw son tha t raises num erou s que stions butprovi des n o an sw ers to tho se question s. In fact, Dix and Daw son has now been updated to re flect the cour t’ s d eci si on i n Tita, and i t recog niz es the resul ti ng co nfusion : Tita , how ev er , s eems t o make cl ear thater ro r in ov er ru li ng a mer it o ri ous moti on to q uash ra is ing a de fect of sub sta nce is su bje ct t o h a rmles s e rror anal y si s. Ital so makes cl ear thi s a nal y si s is to be made under R ule 44.2 (b ) prov is ion for n oncon sti tuti onal har mles s e rror
. Not hin g i n the dec is ion , h o we ve r, in d ic a t e s h o w Ru le 4 4

. 2 (b ) i s t o b e a p p li e d t o t h is si t u a t io n o r h o w, if at all , t his anal y si s d iffers from har mles s e rror anal y si s u nder

Ar ti cl e 21. 19 and Ada m s. G. D I X & R. D A W S ON , 41 T EX AS P RA CTI CE : C R I M I N AL P RA CTI CE A ND P R OC EDU R E § 21. 147 (2nd ed. Su pp. 200 8). 8 The cour t of cri minal appeals ’ ci tati on to Rule 44.2( b) and to D ix and Daw son has left many q uest ion s i n i ts w ake. How ev er , one thi ng i s c lea r— appl y ing a ha rm anal y si s t o12

subs tanti v e defects i n an ind ic tment is i ncons is tent w it h the courtof cr imi nal appeal s’ s p ri or deci si on i n Jacks on , w her e the courtrev ersed w it hout findin g har m and ex pr ess ly reje cte d the A da msharm anal y si s. Jacks on , 718 S.W .2d a t 727

. W e bel iev e tha t pr inc ipl es of sta re dec is is req uire more tha n a mere c it ati on to a r ule of proce d u re and a treati se to
ov er ru le pr ior

precede nt i n an ar ea as co nfused as thi s o ne i s. As the c our

t of cr imi nal appeals has ex pla ine d, i t w il l not o v er ru le pr ecede nt “ li g htl y .” Ex par te D outhit, 232 S.W .3d 69, 74 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2007)

. “[ T]he g oal s of the doc tr ine
o f st a re de cis is in c l u d e ‘p ro m o t[ in g] ju d ici a l e f f ici e n cy an d co n sis te n cy, e n co u ra g[i n g] reliance on judicial decision s, and co ntribu t[ing] to the in tegrity o f the jud icial process.’” Id. (qu o ti n g Paul

son v. State , 28 S.W .3d 570, 571 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2000) ). Had the cour t of
cr imi nal appeal s i ntended to ov er ru le Jacks on , w e ex pe c t th at i t w ou l d ha v e prov i de d s om e
ana ly sis ex plainin g it s r e a sonin g and w ould have answered the quest ions raised byDix and Daw son. Acc ordin g ly , w e decl ine to hol d that the cour t of cr imi nal appeal s i ntended to ov er ru le Jacks on and its progeny

. Inste ad, w e const rue the court’s directive to the court of appeal s a s merely

an a ck now led g ment t hat t he c our t of appeal s d id not a ddr ess or app ly the rem edy fo r a substa ntive defe c t i n t h e indictm entbeca use it foun d no def ect
ex is ted. Beca use Jacks on and i ts prog eny hav e not been ex pr ess ly ov er ru led , w e foll ow

that pr ecede nt. Jacks on , 7 1 8 S .W .2d at 727. Ac cordin g ly , w e s ust ain M er ci er ’s first four is sues , rev erse the tri al cour t’ s judg ment, and render j udg ment di smi ss ing the prosec uti on. W e ne ed n ot ad dress Mercier’s rem aining is s u es, no r do w e ad dress the State ’s crossis sue re g ardin g sentenc ing , becaus e these is sues w oul d notfurth er affectthe outc ome of13

thi s a ppeal

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. II. C ONCL US I ON W e s ust ain M er ci er ’s first throug h f o urth i ss ues, and w e rev erse and render jud g ment di smi ss ing the prosec uti on.

_________ _________

_________

___ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See T EX .R. A PP .P. 47.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 14t h day

of Ma y , 200 9.