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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 182 -CR

M ar c us D ur and R ut he r for d , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-06 -50 0113 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES F . BAI RD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury convicted Ma

rcus Dur and Rutherf

ord of the of

fe n s es o f capital murde r and injury

to a child. SeeTex. P enal Code A nn. §§ 19.03(a) (8), 22.04( a)( 1) (West S u p p . 2007). Punishm ent was a ssessed at life imprisonment without par ole for the offe nse of c apital murder and forty y ear s’ imprisonment for the off ense of injury to a child. In his first point of error , Rutherford
asser ts that his convictions for both offe nses constitute double jeopar dy in violation of the Fifth and Four teenth Amendme nts. SeeU.S. Const. amends. V , XI V. Simil arly , in his second point of err or, Rutherford a sserts that the statute a uthorizi ng convictions under two separ ate provisions of the pena l
c o d e i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l b e c a u s e i tv i o l a t e s d o u

b l e j e o p ar dy. Th e F if th Am e ndme nt g ua

ra nte e a g a ins t do ub le je op ard y is e nf or ceabl e ag a ins t the states throug h the Four teenth Amendme nt. Benton v. M aryland , 395 U.S. 784, 787 (1969). That g uara ntee pr otects ag ainst a sec ond prosec ution for the same off en s e after a c onviction or an2

a c qu itta l, an d a g a in s t mu lt ip le p u n is h me n ts f o r th e s ame o f

f e n s e . N o r t h Ca r olina v. Pearce , 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). I t is the latter protec tion that is asserted her e.

The Double J eopar dy

Clause does not impose a limitation on the leg i s l at ive p r e r o g a ti v e to p r e s c r ib e th e s c o p e o f p unishment. Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983); Ex parte Kopec ky , 821 S.W. 2d 95 7, 95 8- 59 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); J im e ne z v . S tate , 240 S.W .3d 38 4, 41 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 07 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 208 S.W .3d 478, 510 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. ref ’d). A def

endant suff

ers multiple punishments in viol ation of the F if th A me n dme n t o n ly

w h e ns h e is c o n v ic te d

o f mo r e o f f e n s e s th anth e le g is latu

r e inte nded. Ex pa rteErv in , 9 91 S.W. 2d

80 4, 80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); Jimene z , 240 S.W .3d at 417. When a leg islature specifically

authorizes multipl e punishments under two statutes, e ven if those two statutes proscr ibe t he “same” conduct, “a court’s task of st atutory construction is at an e nd and the prosec utor may

seek a nd the trial cour t o r jury may impose cumulative punishment under suc h statutes in a sing le trial.” Hunter , 4 59 U. S. at 36 8- 69 ; Jimene z , 240 S.W .3d at 417-18. Th e inj ur y -t o- a -c hil d s tatut e pr ov ide s: A per son who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another section of this code may

be prose cuted under either or both sections. Section 3.04 [mand a tor

y se ve ra nc e ] doe s n o t

a p p l y t o c r i m i n a l e pis od e s p ro se c ute d und e r b oth thi s section and a

nother sec tion of this code. I f a c riminal episode is prosec uted under both this section and another section of this code an d s en tence s are assessed f or c o n v i c t i o n s u n d e r

b o t hs e c t i o n s , th e s e n t e n c e s s h a l l r unc o n c ur r e n t l y.
Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 22.04(h) ( West S upp. 2007).

Th is C ourt

ha s p re vio us ly

he ld t hat “ [t]his statut e pla inl y a uth or ize s mu lti ple punishments when a de fenda nt’s conduct violates both s ec t ion 22.04 and another penal c ode3

s e c tion.” Jo hnson , 208 S.W .3d at 511 (upholding convictions for c apital murder and injury to elderly individual). We followed that holding in Jimene z . 240 S.W .3d at 418 (upholding convictions for f

elony murder and i njury to child). We do so ag ain today . We overrule Rutherford’ s points of error
. We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

_________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

2, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh