### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-07 -00200 -CV

In re Edw in B aezot ero

OR IG IN A L PR OC E E D IN G FR OM T R A V IS C OU N T Y

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N

Edwin Ba ezotero filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the district court seekingto preve nt a retria l on an indictment f or indece ncy with a child. The tria l court denie d the relief and B aezotero f

iled a notice of appea l. B aezotero pe titions for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to stay

criminal proce eding s until t his Court has ruled on his appea l of the denia l
o f habea s corpus re lief. B eca use the trial c ourt did not rule on the mer its of Ba ezotero’s ha beas corpus a pplication, we are constrained to hold that we are without appellate jurisdiction. We deny bo th t he wr it of mand a mus and the mot ion fo r an e me rg e nc y sta y of c ri min a l pro c e e din g s in the c a se of Sta te v . B ae

zo te ro , c a

us e numbe r D 1- DC -0 5- 50 03 14 , in the 40 3r d D istri c t Co ur t of Tr avis County
. Ba ezotero wa s indicted for indece ncy with a child and plea ded not g uilty . A trial by jury beg an on March 16, 2007. Af ter a pproxi mately

7.5 hours of jury

deliberation over a spa

n of two day s, the t rial court, afte r g iving a n Allen char g e, sua sponte de clar ed a mistrial due to a hung jury over B aezotero’ s objection.Mr. Parks re prese nted B aezotero. 1 2 Ba ezotero filed an application for writ of ha beas c orpus on Marc h 27, 2007, which t h e t r i a l c o u rtd e n i e d

o nA p r i l 1 2 , 2 0 0 7
. B a e z o t e r o a p p e a l e d t h i s d e c i s i o no nt h e s a m e d a y. Ba ezotero’s re trial is set to beg in on Monday , April 16, 2007.

Ba ezotero asse rts that a retrial would violate hi s double jeopar dy protec tions under the F if th A me ndme nt o f t

he U. S. Co ns tit

uti on . H e c la ims that a ft e r t he mis tr ia l, i t w a s b ro ug ht t o the attention of counsel that the jurors had been prog ressing toward una nimity in a dec ision and that
as a r esult, it would be rea sonable to conc lude that a final ver dict could have been r eac hed if the jury was given more time. Ba ezotero also asse rts that the trial cour t had indicated that the second Allen
c h ar g e w o u l d b e m o r e p e r s u a s i v e t h ant h e f i r s t , b u tt h a ta

s e c o n d c h ar g e w a s n e v e r

g i v e nt o t h e j u r

y. Ba ezotero contends that he was unjustly harme d by the t rial court’s failure to g ive t he sec ond and more pe rsuasive Allen char g e and sua sponte dec laration of a mistrial over his objec tion. I n o rd e r f or a de nia l of an a pp lic a tio n f

or the wr it of

ha be a s c or pu s to be an a

pp e a la ble order , th e trial court must have rea ched the merits of the wr it in refusing habea s corpus. In re Gonzales , 12 S.W .3d 913, 914 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet ref ’d). A tr anscr ipt of the hea ring on the application for habe as cor pus, provided to us by

the State, re veals the f

ollowing discussion:

MR. PARKS: We filed a writ of habea s corpus. This is a case that had bee n

1 previously tried. The jury hung up, and I

think J udg e B ender came in in place of J udg e L eonar d who had to leave and decla red a mistrial over the De fense objection. So we filed a writ of habea s corpus, J udg e, based on the form o f j eopar dy iss ue and re qu e st that th e Court

ru le on it.Ms. McGee repr esente d the State. 2 3 TH E CO UR T: Ho w f ar d id t he tr ia l g e t? MS. MC GEE: I ’m so rr y , h owdid

fa r d id t he tr ia l g e t? 2 THE COURT: Yes, be fore the mistrial was dec lare d. MS. MCG EE : As fa r a s— MR. PAR KS: Oh, it was a hungjury mistrial, J udg e. T H E C O U R T : O h , o k ay. MS. MCGEE: Yes. Also, J udg e just on the rec ord—I wanted it to be on the

rec ord that, base d on discussions with t h e j u ry in the back, that they wer e nine f

or g uilty and thre e for

not guilty and we re un a ble to c ome to a de c isi on . An d th e no te sh ou ld s til l be in the file— MR. PARKS: Th a t’ s c or re c t. MS. MC GEE: —in the Court’s file. THE COURT: I ’m g oing to de ny the writ at this time.
Ba sed on this hearingtranscr ipt, it does not appear that the trial court r uled
on the me ri ts of B a e zote ro ’s ha be a s c or pu s a pp lic a tio n. As a

re su lt, the re is n oth ingfo r t his Court to review on a

ppeal. We ca

nnot rule on his double j eopar dy claim i n the abse nce of an appe alable or der. See E x parte Miller , 9 31 S.W. 2d 72 4, 72 5- 26 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 96 , n o p e t.) . In o rd e r f

or thi s Cour

t to have jur isd ic tio n o ve r t he do ub le je op ard

y c la im, Ba ez o t er o wo u l d

n ee d t o p re s en th i s h ab ea s co rp u s ap p l i ca t i o n aga i n t o t h e t ri al co u rt j u d ge
or to a no the r d istri c t ju dg e havin g jur isd ic tio n a nd ob ta in a ru lin g on the me ri ts.4 I n o r d e r to s h o w th a t th e r e h a s b e e n a r u li n g o n th e me r it s o f th e habe as
co rp u s ap p l i ca t i o n , Ba ez o t er o wi l l n ee d t o es t ab l i s h a r ec o rdt h at t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt j u d ge
c on sid e re d mo re tha

n th e me re fa c t of a pr ior mis tr ia l. Atr ia l c ourt jud g e ha s d isc re tio n to decla re a mistrial ove r a defe ndant’s objections when it c oncludes that it is a l toge ther improbable that t h e jury could ag ree . Ga lv an v . S tat e , 8 6 9 S. W. 2 d

5 2 6 , 5 2 8 ( T e x. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, pet. ref’d). “The court’s ex erc ise of discre tion in dis char g ing the jur y un de r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s is me a sure d b y the le ng th o f tim e the jur y de lib e rate d in l i gh t o f the nature of the case and of the evidenc e.” Id
. T h e s e ty p e s o f f a c to r s s hould be considere d in any

ruling on the merits of B aezotero’ s habea s corpus a pplication. We d e n y th e w r it o f ma

n d a mu s an d th e mo ti o n f o r an e me r g e n c y

stay of
c ri min a l pro ceed ing s in

the tr ia l c ourt

wi tho ut p re

jud ic e to a llo w B a e zote ro to p re se nt h is habea s corpus a

pplication ag ain to the trial cour t judge or to an o t h er district judge to be
re vie we d o n th e me ri ts.

_____________________________ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Filed: Apr il 13, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh