## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O S

. P D

- 0 7 7 1

- 1 6

, P D

- 0 7 7 2

- 1 6 & P D

- 0 7 7 3

- 1 6

E X P A R T E A N D R E W P E T E

, A p p e l l a n t

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F I F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

D A L L A S C O U N T Y

Y E A R Y

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d

H E R V E Y

, A L C A L A

, R IC H A R D S O N

, N E W E L L a n d K E E L

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. K E A S L E R

, J

. ,

c o n c u r r e d i n t h e r e s u l t

. W A L K E R

, J

. , d i s s e n t e d

.

O P I N I O N

T h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a n a p p e a l f r o m a d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e ’ s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f i n a p r e

- t r i a l

a p p l i c a t i o n f

o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s

. A p p e l l a n t w a s u n d e r i n d i c t m e n t f o r t h r e e c h a r g e s o f

a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a c h i l d

, a n d

, i n a c o n s o l i d a t e d t r i a l

, a j u r y h a d f o u n d h i m g u i l t y

o f t h o s e o f

f e n s e s

. H a v i n g e l e c t e d t o g o t o t h e j u r y f o r p u n i s h m e n t

, A p p e l l a n t c h o s e t o t e s t i f y

a t t h a t s t a g e o f t r i a l

. W h e n h e s t o o d t o a p p r o a c h t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d

, i t b e c a m e a p p a r e n t t o t h e

j u r y t h a t h e w a s s h a c k l e d

. A p p e l l a n t a s k e d f o r a m i s t r i a l

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o k t h a t r e q u e s t

u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t

, m e a n w h i l e a l l o w i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s t o c o n t i n u e

. A f t e r

A p p e l l a n t h a d t e s t i f

i e d o n d i r e c t

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, a n d f o l l o w i n g b r i e f c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n b y t h ePete — 2

S t a t e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t e r r u p t e d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o a n n o u n c e t h a t i t h a d d e c i d e d t o g r a n t a

m i s t r i a l

— b u t o n l y a s t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l

. B e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t w a s a b l e t o

e m p a n e l a n e w j u r y t o a s s e s s p u n i s h m e n t

, h o w e v e r

, A p p e l l a n t f i l e d a c o m b i n e d a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s a n d m o t i o n t o r e i n s t a t e h i s p r e

- t r i a l b o n d

. H e a r g u e d t h a t

, b y

g r a n t i n g a m i s t r i a l

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t o r e d t h e c a s e s t o t h e i r p r e

- t r i a l s t a t u s

,

a n d t h a t h e s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e r e l e a s e d o n b o n d p e n d i n g t r i a l

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d b o t h

t h e w r i t a p p l i c a t i o n a n d t h e m o t i o n

.

O n a p p e a l f

r o m d e n i a l o f t h e w r i t a p p l i c a t i o n

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s s u s t a i n e d

A p p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m

. I n a n u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n

, i t r e v e r s e d t h e o r d e r d e n y i n g h a b e a s c o r p u s

r e l i e f a n d r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

— p r e s u m a b l y t o r e t r y

t h e m f r o m s c r a t c h

, i n c l u d i n g a n e w g u i l t p h a s e o f t r i a l

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e a s o n e d t h a t

,

“ [ w ] h e n a m i s t r i a l i s d e c l a r e d

, t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e g r a n t i n g o f t h e m i s t r i a l b e c o m e

l e g a l l y i n e f

f e c t i v e

, a n d t h e c a s e s t a n d s a s i t d i d b e f o r e t h e m i s t r i a l w a s d e c l a r e d

. ” E x p a r t e

P e t e

, N o s

. 0 5

- 1 5

- 0 1 5 2 1

- C R

, 0 5

- 0 1 5 2 2

- C R

, & 0 5

- 1 5

- 0 1 5 2 3

- C R

, 2 0 1 6 W L 3 3 4 4 2 2 4

, a t * 2

( T e x

. A p p

. — D a l l a s 2 0 1 6 ) ( m e m o

. o p

. , n o t d e s i g n a t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n )

. F o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n

,

t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s u l t i m a t e l y r e l i e d u p o n t h i s C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n i n B u l l a r d v

. S t a t e

, 1 6 8 T e x

.

C r i m

. R

. 6 2 7

, 3 3 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 2 2

, 2 2 3 ( 1 9 6 0 )

, a c a s e t h a t w a s d e c i d e d a t a t i m e b e f o r e c r i m i n a l

p r o s e c u t i o n s i n T e x a s w e r e b i f u r c a t e d

. I

d

. W e g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y 1

Although there is no constitutional rig ht to have a jury assess punishment, Texas is one of 1

the few states t hat confer a rig ht to jury punishment, by

statute. Barrow v. State , 207 S.W .3d 377,

380 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Prior to the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedur e, in a not-g uilty plea in

a felony case

, the jury assessed both g uilt and punishment in a unitary proce eding

. Barfield v. State

,Pete — 3

r e v i e w t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r

, u n d e r o u r p r e s e n t b i f u r c a t e d s y s t e m

, w h e n

i r r e m e d i a b l e e r r o r o r m i s c o n d u c t o c c u r s d u r i n g a j u r y t r i a l

, b u t n o t u n t i l t h e p u n i s h m e n t

p h a s e

, t r i a l c o u r t s s h o u l d h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t a m i s t r i a l a s t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f

t r i a l o n l y

.

B A C K G R O U N D

T r i a l w a s c o n s o l i d a t e d o n t h r e e i n d i c t m e n t s

, c h a r g i n g A p p e l l a n t w i t h a g g r a v a t e d

s e x u a l a s s a u l t o n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t d a t e s a g a i n s t t h e s a m e v i c t i m

. A j u r y f o u n d A p p e l l a n t g u i l t y

o n a l l t h r e e c h a r g e s

. A p p a r e n t l y

, A p p e l l a n t a t t e m p t e d t o e l e c t t o h a v e t h e j u r y a s s e s s h i s

p u n i s h m e n t

. A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e

- i n

- c h i e f a t t h e p u n i s h m e n t

2

63 S.W .3d 446, 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The innovation of bifurcation “wa s obviously desig ned

to take the blindfolds off

. . . when it came to assessing punishment.” Brumfield v. State

, 445 S.W .2d

732, 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (plurality opinion on reh’ g ). I t i s “t ru e” t h at, at the time that

bifurca tion was enacte d,“whe re the jury [was] selec ted t o assess punis hment and fails t o agre e on

penalty

, a mistrial shall be decla red as to the entire case .” Id

. at 740. But the statute that so dictated

has since been amende d to pr ovide that, when a jury hang s on the issue of punishment, “a mistrial

shall be decla

red only in the punishment pha se of the trial[.] ” T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 37.07 §

(3)( c). The re is no compa rable provision in the Code that provides for a mi strial as t o punishment

only when some irr emediable defe ct occ urs during the punishment phase of the bifurc ated tria l.

We say “appa

rently ” beca

use, afte r the jury found Appellant g uilty

, the trial court conducte d 2

the punishment proce eding befor e the jury

. But we cannot find in the cler k’s rec ord a written elec tion

of jury assessment of punishment, a s require d by Article 37.07, Section 2(b)( 2). T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 37.07 § 2(b)( 2). We do find a sworn motion in the cler k’s rec ord reque sting that the jury

impose community supervision. T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 42.12 § 4(d)( 3) & 4(e)

. That can also

be a suf ficient wa y to invoke a defe ndant’s statutory rig ht to jury assessment of punishment, since

punishment must also be assessed by the j ury when the defe ndant has “filed his sworn mot ion for

[j ury -asse ssed] community supervision befor e the trial beg an[.] ” T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 37.07

§ 2(b)( 1). See Bullard v. State

, 548 S.W .2d 13, 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (“[I ]n non-ca pital case s

if the defe ndant files a motion reque sting the jury to g ive him probation or if he elec ts in writing as

provided by statute to ha

ve the jury pass on the issue of punishment, then a jury will de termine the

penalty to be assessed.” ). Unfortuna tely

, the rec ord seems to indicate that the motion for community

supervision was not proper ly sworn to at the time it was filed, as require d by Article 37.07, SectionPete — 4

p h a s e

, A p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t e d s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s

, a n d t h e n r o s e t o t a k e t h e s t a n d t o t e s t i f y i n h i s

o w n b e h a l f :

T H E C O U R T : O k a y

, M r

. P e t e

, c o m e o n u p h e r e t o t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d

.

T H E D E F E N D A N T : ( C o m p l i e s

. )

[ P R O S E C U T O R ] : J u d g e ?

[ D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ] : J u d g e

, I f o r g o t t h a t

- -

T H E C O U R T : O k a y

. J u s t

- - y o u c a n t e s t i f y f r o m r i g h t h e r e

.

[ D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ] : C a n w e i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t o d i s r e g a r d t h a t

, I

g u e s s ?

[ P R O S E C U T O R ] : C a n w e a s k t h a t t h e j u r y p l e a s e s t e p o u t f o r a f e w

m i n u t e s ?

T H E C O U R T : Y e s

.

T H E B A I L I F F : A l l r i s e

.

( J u r y e x i t s c o u r t r o o m ; 2 : 3 7 p

. m

. )

A l l p a r t i e s t h e n r e t i r e d t o c h a m b e r s f o r a n o f f

- t h e

- r e c o r d d i s c u s s i o n

. A t 3 : 3 5 p

. m

. — a l m o s t

a n h o u r l a t e r

— t h e p a r t i e s r e t u r n e d t o t h e c o u r t r o o m a n d

, o u t s i d e t h e j u r y ’ s p r e s e n c e

,

A p p e l l a n t ’ s c o u n s e l a n n o u n c e d t h a t

, “ a t t h i s t i m e

, w e h a v e n o c h o i c e b u t t o m o v e f o r a

2(b)( 1). A hand-w ritten notation appea rs at the top of the motion that indicates it was “[f]i led in open

court” on a date befor e trial beg an, which would have made its filing timely

. This notation appea rs

to have been signe d by the judge of the trial court. But the date of the cler k’s file stamp at the bottom

of the motion is the day afte r the punishment pha se of trial occ urre d. Moreove r, the jurat indicates

that Appellant did not swea r to the motion until the same date as the cler k’s file stamp—the day afte r

the punishment phase. Thus, though the motion was timely filed, it was not y et proper ly sworn at the

time of its filing.Pete — 5

m i s t r i a l [

. ] ” A f

t e r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o n t h e r e c o r d

, d u r i n g w h i c h i t w a s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e j u r y

h a d w i t n e s s e d A p p e l l a n t i n s h a c k l e s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t w o u l d t a k e t h e m o t i o n

f o r m i s t r i a l u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t i n o r d e r t o “ t h i n k a b o u t i t

. ” 3

T h e j u r y r e t u r n e d

, a n d A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d o n d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n

. S h o r t l y a f t e r d e f e n s e

c o u n s e l p a s s e d A p p e l l a n t t o t h e S t a t e f o r c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t e r r u p t e d t h e

t e s t i m o n y

, d e c l a r i n g t h a t “ w e n e e d t o t a k e a s h o r t b r e a k

. ” A f t e r a n o t h e r r e c e s s t h a t l a s t e d

f o r t y

- n i n e m i n u t e s

, t h e p a r t i e s r e c o n v e n e d i n t h e c o u r t r o o m

, i n t h e j u r y ’ s a b s e n c e

, a n d t h e

t r i a l c o u r t a n n o u n c e d f

o r t h e r e c o r d :

T H E C O U R T :

. . . T h e D e f e n s e h a s m a d e a m o t i o n f o r m i s t r i a l w i t h

r e g a r d t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t h i s t r i a l

. I ’ m g o i n g t o g r a n t t h a t m o t i o n f o r

m i s t r i a l w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

.

T h e j u r y w a s d i s c h a r g e d w i t h o u t e v e r h a v i n g r e t i r e d t o d e l i b e r a t e p u n i s h m e n t

. O n t h e s a m e

d a y

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o s i g n e d a w r i t t e n o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m i s t r i a l

. T h e w r i t t e n o r d e r m a k e s

n o m e n t i o n o f t h e s c o p e o f t h e m i s t r i a l

.

W h e n t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e s e t t h e c a u s e f o r a n e w p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

, A p p e l l a n t f i l e d h i s

c o m b i n e d a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s a n d m o t i o n f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f p r e

- t r i a l

b o n d

. H e a r g u e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t “ l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r a m i s t r i a l a s t o p u n i s h m e n t

o n l y ” a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t w a s t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e d t o r e i n s t a t e A p p e l l a n t ’ s b o n d

. A f t e r

h e a r i n g a r g u m e n t s

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t

, w i t h a d i f f e r e n t j u d g e p r e s i d i n g

, d e n i e d t h e c o m b i n e d

p l e a d i n g

. C i t i n g S t a t e v

. S t e w a r t

, 2 8 2 S

. W

. 3 d 7 2 9 ( T e x

. A p p

. — A u s t i n 2 0 0 9

, n o p e t

. )

, t h e

Fr om th e p ro s ecutor’s rema rks during this colloquy

, we g ather that Appellant was not 3

place d in shackles until afte r the jury had found him g uilty

of the off enses.Pete — 6

t r i a l c o u r t a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t h a d t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t a m i s t r i a l a s t o p u n i s h m e n t o n l y b y

v i r t u e o f R u l e 2 1

. 9 o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

, w h i c h r e q u i r e s a t r i a l c o u r t

t o l i m i t i t s g r a n t o f a n e w t r i a l ( a s o p p o s e d t o a m i s t r i a l ) t o a n e w p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e w h e n t h e

o n l y m e r i t o r i o u s g r o u n d f o r n e w t r i a l i t f

i n d s i s o n e t h a t i m p a c t e d o n l y t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f

p u n i s h m e n t

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h a t A p p e l l a n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o a p p e a l f r o m i t s o r d e r 4

d e n y i n g h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f

, a n d A p p e l l a n t f

i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. 5

O n a p p e a l

, t h e S t a t e a r g u e d t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

o r t h e c a s e l a w o f

T e x a s t h a t w o u l d p r o h i b i t a t r i a l c o u r t f r o m g r a n t i n g a m i s t r i a l o n l y a s t o

t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l i n a n y c a s e i n w h i c h i r r e m e d i a b l e e r r o r o c c u r s o n l y d u r i n g t h a t

p h a s e

. U n d e r t h e l a w a s i t c u r r e n t l y s t a n d s

, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o a w a r d n e w t r i a l s

o n l y a s t o p u n i s h m e n t w h e n t h e y f i n d t h a t e r r o r o c c u r r e d o n l y d u r i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

o f t r i a l

. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. a r t

. 4 4

. 2 9 ( b )

. T r i a l c o u r t s t h a t f i n d m e r i t o r i o u s g r o u n d s f o r

a n e w t r i a l

, b u t o n l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l

, a r e l i k e w i s e r e q u i r e d t o

See T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 21.9(a) & (c) (“[A] court m ust g rant only a new trial on punishment 4

when it has found a g round that aff ecte d only the assessment of punishment. * * * Gra nting a new

trial on punishment restore s the case to its position afte r the defe ndant was found g uilty .”); see also

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 21.1(b) (“ New trial on punishment means a new hear ing of the punishment stag e of

a criminal action afte r t h e t ri al court has, on the defe ndant’s motion, set aside an assessment of

punishment without setting aside a finding or verdic t of g uilt.”). The court of appea ls in Stewart did

not purport to hold that a trial cour t had authority

to gr ant a limited mistrial

.

Twice during the habea s proce eding s, the trial court also ex p re s s ed t he view that “the 5

defe nse would be estopped from arg u i n g t h at t hey should g et a new trial beca use t hey ’re the ones

that asked for the mistrial in the first place [.] ” L ater the trial court elabor ated: “I also fee l like since

y ou asked for it, y ou should be estopped from complaining about it at this proce eding

. Now I think

y ou will probably answe r with that y ou would want to g o all the way back to the not g uilty portion,

but I didn’t rea d the motion for a mistrial that way and I don’t believe the Court did either.” The trial

court ne verthe less signe d the ce rtification of a ppeal.Pete — 7

g r a n t a n e w t r i a l o n l y a s t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

. T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 2 1

. 9 ( a ) & ( c )

. W h i l e t h e r e

i s n o c o m p a r a b l e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e o r t h e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e

P r o c e d u r e g o v e r n i n g m i s t r i a l s b a s e d s o l e l y u p o n p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e m i s h a p s

, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s

,

w e s h o u l d n o n e t h e l e s s r e g a r d i t a s w i t h i n a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t s u c h a

l i m i t e d m i s t r i a l i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y c o n t r a d i c t o r y s t a t u t e o r r u l e

.

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e

j e c t e d t h i s v i e w

. F i n d i n g n o p r o v i s i o n c o m p a r a b l e t o A r t i c l e

4 4

. 2 9 ( b ) o r R u l e 2 1

. 9 ( a ) a n d ( c ) t h a t w o u l d r e g u l a t e t h e s c o p e o f a m i s t r i a l f o r e r r o r

o c c u r r i n g o n l y d u r i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l

c o u r t l a c k e d t h e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t s u c h l i m i t e d r e l i e f

. I n s t e a d

, w h e n a t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t s a

m i s t r i a l

, t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s h e l d

, a l l o f t h e p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g s “ b e c o m e l e g a l l y i n e f f e c t i v e

,

a n d t h e c a s e s t a n d s a s i t d i d b e f o r e t h e m i s t r i a l w a s d e c l a r e d

. ” P e t e

, 2 0 1 6 W L 3 3 4 4 2 2 4

, a t

* 2

. F o r t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s p r i m a r i l y r e l i e d u p o n B u l l a r d

. I d

. I t a l s o c i t e d 6

H i g h t v

. S t a t e

, 9 0 7 S

. W

. 2 d 8 4 5

, 8 4 6

- 4 7 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 5 )

, a c a s e f r o m t h i s C o u r t t h a t

p r e c e d e d t h e a d v e n t o f p r e s e n t

- d a y R u l e 2 1

. 9

. P e t e

, 2 0 1 6 W L 3 3 4 4 2 2 4

, a t * 1

. I n H i g h t

, w e

h e l d t h a t t r i a l c o u r t s l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t m o t i o n s f o r n e w t r i a l a s t o p u n i s h m e n t o n l y

Bullard

, in turn, cited Jones v. State

, 3 Tex. App. 575, 580 (1878), an opinion of the Texas 6

Court of Appea ls. Both Bullard and Jones simply decla red that, afte r a mistrial, the case “stands as

it did befor e the mistrial.” Bullard

, 168 Tex. Crim. R. at 629, 331 S.W .2d at 223; Jones

, at 580. Of

course

, under a unitary trial sy stem, that nece ssarily meant returning the whole proce eding to square

one. I n a bifurca

ted proce eding

, by contra st, g ranting a mistrial only as to the punishment phase for

err or that only aff

ects that phase, while leaving the g uilty verdic t intact, likewise place s the case in

the same posture as “bef

ore the mistrial.” There is no inhere nt rea son to decla re that all of the prior

proce eding s are rende red “leg ally ineffe ctive,” as the cour t of appe als did here . Were it other wise,

both Article 44.29(b) and Rule 21.9(a) & (c)

, providing for new punishment proce eding s on ly

, would

be untena ble.Pete — 8

b e c a u s e A r t i c l e 4 4

. 2 9 ( b ) o n l y a u t h o r i z e d a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s t o g r a n t n e w p u n i s h m e n t h e a r i n g s

,

n o t t r i a l c o u r t s

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a l s o c i t e d a n e a r l i e r i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t 7

o p i n i o n

, S t a t e v

. B o u n h iz a

, 2 9 4 S

. W

. 3 d 7 8 0

, 7 8 6 ( T e x

. A p p

. — A u s t i n 2 0 0 9

, n o p e t

. )

, w h i c h

c o n t i n u e d t o a p p l y B u l l a r d ’ s b r o a d c o n c e p t i o n o f m i s t r i a l

— e v e n a f t e r c r i m i n a l t r i a l s i n T e x a s

b e c a m e b i f

u r c a t e d

— t o h o l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t l a c k s a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t a m i s t r i a l a s t o

p u n i s h m e n t a l o n e

. P e t e

, 2 0 1 6 W L 3 3 4 4 2 2 4

, a t * 1

. W e g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r

d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w i n o r d e r t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u r t m a y g r a n t a m i s t r i a l l i m i t e d t o

c o n d u c t i n g a n e w p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l

.

A N A L Y S I S

T h e r e i s l i t t l e t o b e f

o u n d i n t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e t h a t d i r e c t l y r e g u l a t e s

t h e u s a g e o f m i s t r i a l s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s i n T e x a s

. B l a c k ’ s g i v e s t w o d e f i n i t i o n s o f “ m i s t r i a l ” : 8

“ 1

. A t r i a l t h a t t h e j u d g e b r i n g s t o a n e n d

, w i t h o u t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n t h e m e r i t s

, b e c a u s e o f

a p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r o r s e r i o u s m i s c o n d u c t o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. 2

. A t r i a l t h a t

e n d s i n c o n c l u s i v e l y b e c a u s e t h e j u r y c a n n o t a g r e e o n a v e r d i c t

. ” B LA C K ’ S L A W D IC T IO N A R Y

1 1 5 4 ( 1 0 t h e d

. 2 0 1 4 )

. I n a n u m b e r o f a r t i c l e s

, t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e a d d r e s s e s

After Rule 21.9 was amended in 2007 to expressly require trial courts to g rant new trials 7

only as to punishment when appropr iate, this Court rec og nized that Hight no longe r controlled.

“While we have previously held that a trial court may not g rant a new trial solely on t h e i s s u e of

punishm en t

, the reasoning for that rule no longe r st ands, and a trial court may indeed gr ant a new

trial on punishment.” State v. Dav is , 349 S.W .3d 535, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

I t is clea r enoug h from the Code, howeve r, that the L eg islature contemplated that mistrials 8

would sometimes occur . This is evidence d by Article 33.06, w hich provides f or the dispos ition of

a defe ndant’s surety bond in the event that a felony prosec ution should result in a mistr i al

. T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 33.06.Pete — 9

m i s t r i a l s t h a t f

i t w i t h i n t h e l a t t e r d e f

i n i t i o n

, c a u s e d b y a h u n g j u r y

. B u t i n t r e a t i n g m i s t r i a l s 9

o f t h e f o r m e r v a r i e t y

, t h e C o d e g i v e s l i t t l e c o n c r e t e g u i d a n c e

, a n d a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s h a v e

f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s “ o b l i g e d t o r e s o r t t o a n a l o g y

. ” R o d r i g u e z v

. S t a t e

, 8 5 2 S

. W

. 2 d 5 1 6

, 5 1 8

( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 3 )

. I n R o d r i g u e z i t s e l f

, w e h a d n o s p e c i f

i c c o d e p r o v i s i o n t o c o n s u l t

w h e n w e h e l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t r e t a i n e d t h e a u t h o r i t y

, o n c e h a v i n g g r a n t e d a m i s t r i a l

, t o

r e s c i n d t h a t g r a n t “ s o l o n g a s t h a t r e m a i n s a v i a b l e o p t i o n u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. ” I d

. a t

5 2 0

. O u r m a n i f

e s t i m p r o v i s a t i o n i n R o d r i g u e z s u g g e s t s a r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t m i s t r i a l p r a c t i c e

i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s i n T e x a s i s f l e x i b l e a n d

, b y d e f

a u l t

, l a r g e l y a c r e a t u r e o f t h e c o m m o n l a w

,

s u b j e c t t o r e g u l a t i o n b y j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n

. S e e T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. a r t

. 1

. 2 7 ( “ I f t h i s C o d e

f a i l s t o p r o v i d e a r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e o f c a s e w h i c h m a y a r i s e

, t h e r u l e s

o f t h e c o m m o n l a w s h a l l b e a p p l i e d a n d g o v e r n

. ” )

.

T h a t b e i n g s o

, t h e r e i s n o c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n t o w a i t f o r r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y i n o r d e r

t o s a y w h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s c o p e o f a m i s t r i a l r u l i n g s h o u l d b e

. S o l o n g a s i t m a k e s s e n s e f o r

u s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t a m i s t r i a l f o r “ p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r o r s e r i o u s m i s c o n d u c t ” a f f e c t i n g o n l y t h e

p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l s h o u l d o n l y r e q u i r e a n e w p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

, a n d t h e r e i s n o

s t a t u t o r y o r r e g u l a t o r y i m p e d i m e n t t o o u r s o h o l d i n g

, w e a r e n o t c o n s t r a i n e d b y t h e l a c k o f

a n e x p r e s s p r o v i s i o n i n t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e o r t h e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

.

W e a r e f r e e t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t c a s e s s u c h a s B u l l a r d a n d B o u n h i z a

, h o l d i n g t h a t a m i s t r i a l

n e c e s s a r i l y w i p e s t h e e n t i r e s l a t e c l e a n

, i n c l u d i n g t h e g u i l t y v e r d i c t

, a r e a n a c h r o n i s t i c

— t h e

I.e.

, T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 36.31; art. 37.07, §§ 2(a) & 3(c) ; art. 37.11; art. 45.035. 9Pete — 10

p r o d u c t o f o u r f

o r m e r u n i t a r y p r o c e d u r e i n w h i c h a j u r y a s s e s s e d g u i l t a n d p u n i s h m e n t d u r i n g

t h e s a m e p h a s e o f

t r i a l

. W e a r e n o t p r e s e n t l y b o u n d b y t h o s e h o l d i n g s

. W e t h i n k t h e S t a t e ’ s

m e t h o d o l o g y i s t h e c o r r e c t o n e t o t a k e u n d e r o u r c u r r e n t b i f u r c a t e d s c h e m e

— t o a s k w h e t h e r

a n y t h i n g i n t h e C o d e o r t h e R u l e s w o u l d s o m e h o w p r o h i b i t a t r i a l c o u r t f r o m g r a n t i n g a

m i s t r i a l l i m i t e d t o a n e w p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l u n d e r a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

.

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e t h a t

, i n t h e a b s t r a c t

, i t c e r t a i n l y m a k e s s e n s e t o l i m i t t h e s c o p e

o f s u c h a m i s t r i a l

— f

o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n i t m a k e s s e n s e t o l i m i t t h e s c o p e o f a g r a n t o f n e w

t r i a l b a s e d o n p u n i s h m e n t e r r o r a l o n e

, a s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 2 1

. 9 ( a ) a n d ( c )

, o r t o l i m i t t h e

s c o p e o f a p p e l l a t e r e l i e f w h e n t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s p e r c e i v e s e r r o r a f f e c t i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t

p h a s e a l o n e

, a s r e q u i r e d b y A r t i c l e 4 4

. 2 9 ( b )

. I f s o m e e r r o r o r m i s c o n d u c t o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g

t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l c o u l d h a v e h a d n o c o n c e i v a b l e e f f e c t o n t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e

j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t w i t h r e s p e c t t o a d e f e n d a n t ’ s g u i l t

, t h e r e i s n o c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n t o r e p e a t t h e

g u i l t p h a s e o f t r i a l

. I t w o u l d o n l y s e r v e t o g r a n t t h e d e f e n d a n t a g r a t u i t o u s s e c o n d c h a n c e a t

a n a c q u i t t a l

. T h e o n l y q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e r e e x i s t s a n y s t a t u t o r y o r r e g u l a t o r y p r o v i s i o n

t h a t w o u l d i m p e d e o u r h o l d i n g a s a m a t t e r o f c a s e l a w t h a t s u c h a l i m i t e d m i s t r i a l i s

, n o t o n l y

d e s i r a b l e

, b u t

, i n f

a c t

, p e r m i s s i b l e

.

W e d o p e r c e i v e o n e s u c h i m p e d i m e n t : a d e f e n d a n t ’ s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o h a v e “ t h e s a m e ”

j u r y a s s e s s p u n i s h m e n t a s t h e o n e t h a t a s s e s s e d h i s g u i l t

. S e e S t a t e v

. D o y l e

, 1 4 0 S

. W

. 3 d 8 9 0

,

8 9 5 & n

. 4 ( T e x

. A p p

. — C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 4

, p e t

. r e f ’ d ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t g r a n t i n g m i s t r i a l

a s t o p u n i s h m e n t o n l y w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a n “ i n f r i n g e m e n t ” t h a t w o u l d b e “ u n f a v o r a b l e ” t o aPete — 11

d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o “ t h e s a m e ” j u r y u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7

, S e c t i o n 2 ( b ) )

. U n d e r S e c t i o n 2 ( b )

o f A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 o f t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

, a d e f e n d a n t m a y e l e c t t o h a v e a j u r y

a s s e s s h i s p u n i s h m e n t

. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. a r t

. 3 7

. 0 7 § 2 ( b )

. T h e d e f a u l t u n d e r t h i s

p r o v i s i o n i s j u d g e

- a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n t

, b u t a d e f e n d a n t m a y o b t a i n j u r y p u n i s h m e n t

, a t h i s

o p t i o n

, “ w h e r e [ h e ] s o e l e c t s i n w r i t i n g b e f o r e t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e v o i r d i r e

e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e j u r y p a n e l

, ” o r t i m e l y f i l e s a s w o r n m o t i o n f

o r j u r y

- a s s e s s e d c o m m u n i t y

s u p e r v i s i o n

. I

d

. M o r e o v e r

, w h e n h e p r o p e r l y i n v o k e s t h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o j u r y

- a s s e s s e d

p u n i s h m e n t

, “ t h e p u n i s h m e n t s h a l l b e a s s e s s e d b y t h e s a m e j u r y

, e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n

S e c t i o n 3 ( c ) o f t h i s a r t i c l e [ A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 ] a n d i n A r t i c l e 4 4

. 2 9

. ” I d

. ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. A

d e f e n d a n t w h o h a s f

o l l o w e d t h e p r o c e d u r a l s t e p s n e c e s s a r y t o t r i g g e r h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o

j u r y a s s e s s m e n t o f p u n i s h m e n t h a s t h e s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o h a v e t h a t p u n i s h m e n t a s s e s s e d b y

“ t h e s a m e ” j u r y a s t h e o n e t h a t f o u n d h i m g u i l t y

. S e c t i o n 2 ( b ) o f A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7 a d m i t s o f

t w o

— a n d o n l y t w o

— s p e c i f i c a l l y d e l i n e a t e d e x c e p t i o n s

. W h i l e a m i s t r i a l b a s e d o n a h u n g

j u r y i s o n e o f t h o s e e x c e p t i o n s

, a m i s t r i a l o f B l a c k ’ s L a w D i c t i o n a r y ’ s o t h e r 1 0

Section 3(c) of Article 37.07 rea ds: 1 0

(c) I f the jury finds the defe ndant g ui l t y an d the matter of punishment is

ref err ed to the jury

, the verdic t shall not be complete until a jury v er d i ct has been

rende red as to both the g uilt or innocenc e of the defe ndant and the amount of

punishment. I n the event th e j ury shall fail to ag ree on the issue of punishment, a

mistrial sha ll be decla

red only in the punishment phase of the trial, the jury shall be

dischar ged, and no jeopar dy shall attach. The court shall impanel another jury as

soon as practicable to determine the issue of punishment

.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 37.07 § 3(c) (empha sis added)

. The other delineate d exception is Article

44.29, Subsection (b) of which provides for a new punishment proce eding in front of a differ ent juryPete — 12

v a r i e t y

— i r r e m e d i a b l e e r r o r o r m i s c o n d u c t o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

— i s n o t

. 1 1

G r a n t i n g a m i s t r i a l o n l y a s t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t r i a l u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s c o u l d

v e r y w e l l v i o l a t e a d e f

e n d a n t ’ s s t a t u t o r i l y c o n f e r r e d r i g h t t o h a v e “ t h e s a m e ” j u r y a s s e s s h i s

p u n i s h m e n t a s p r e v i o u s l y f o u n d h i m g u i l t y

.

W e d o n o t b e l i e v e

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t t h i s s t a t u t o r y r i g h t i n v a r i a b l y p r e s e n t s a n

i n s u r m o u n t a b l e o b s t a c l e t o g r a n t i n g a m i s t r i a l a s t o p u n i s h m e n t o n l y i n e v e r y c o n c e i v a b l e

c a s e i n w h i c h s u c h a l i m i t e d m i s t r i a l m i g h t o t h e r w i s e b e a p p r o p r i a t e

. T h e s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o

a s s e s s m e n t o f p u n i s h m e n t b y “ t h e s a m e ” j u r y i s f a r f r o m a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e f e a t u r e o f t h e

c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m

. S e e Ma r i n v

. S t a t e

, 8 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 5

, 2 8 0 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 3 )

( d e s c r i b i n g “ a b s o l u t e r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d p r o h i b i t i o n s

, ” w h i c h “ a r e t o b e o b s e r v e d e v e n

w i t h o u t p a r t i s a n r e q u e s t [

, ] ” a n d w h i c h m a y b e r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e o n a p p e a l )

. I n d e e d

, i t

i s n o t e v e n i n t h e n a t u r e o f a w a i v e r

- o n l y r i g h t

, w h i c h m u s t b e r e c o g n i z e d a n d a f f i r m a t i v e l y

upon appellate reve rsal for trial err or t hat occurs o n l y at the puni shment phase. T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 44.29(b)

.

This would seem to be the quintessen t i al context for apply ing the statutory construction 1 1

aide expre

ssio unius est exc lus i o a l t erius

. This “maxim opera tes only when a compre hensive

trea tment of t he subj ect matter is intended or when addressing an ex ception to a general rule.” Ex

parte Campbell

, 267 S.W .3d 916, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008 ). Section 2(b) of Article 37.07

provides such a g ener al rule: that, upon proper invocation of his rig ht to jury -asse ssed punishment,

a defe ndant “shall” enjoy the benef it of “the same” jury to a ssess punishment a s assessed his g uilt.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 37.07, § 2(b). I t a lso pr ovides two definite e x ceptions, and no othe rs:

(1) when there is a hung jury

, under Section 3(c) of Article 37.07; and (2) w hen an a ppellate c ourt

finds err or aff

ecting the punishment pha se only

, under Article 44.29(b). Id

. Section 2(b) of Article

3 7

. 07 clea

rly contemplates that, in any other scena rio (including a non-hung -jury -mistria l ), a

defe ndant must still enjoy his rig ht to “the same” jury

. We think that in the context of this statutory

scheme

, “it is fair to suppose t hat [ the L eg islature] considere d the unnamed possibility and meant

to sa y no to it.” State v. Hill

, 499 S.W .3d 853, 866 n.29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Chase v.

State , 448 S.W .3d 6, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).Pete — 13

r e l i n q u i s h e d b e f

o r e i t c a n b e l o s t

. I

d

. ( a d e f e n d a n t d o e s n o t w a i v e s u c h a r i g h t u n t i l h e “ s a y s

s o p l a i n l y

, f

r e e l y

, a n d i n t e l l i g e n t l y

, s o m e t i m e s i n w r i t i n g a n d a l w a y s o n t h e r e c o r d ” )

. R a t h e r

,

i t i s a r i g h t t h a t i s w h o l l y s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e

, s i n c e i t i s l o s t b y m e r e i n a c t i o n

. I d

. a t 2 7 9

( “ f o r f e i t u r e ” i s t h e l o s s o f a r i g h t o r c l a i m b y f a i l i n g t o i n s i s t o n i t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n b y r e q u e s t

o r o b j e c t i o n )

. A d e f

e n d a n t w h o h a s f

a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y i n v o k e h i s r i g h t t o j u r y s e n t e n c i n g i n

t h e f i r s t p l a c e

, i n t h e m a n n e r r e q u i r e d b y S e c t i o n 2 ( b ) o f A r t i c l e 3 7

. 0 7

, m a y n o t l a t e r i n s i s t

t h a t h e w a s d e p r i v e d o f h i s r i g h t t o h a v e t h e “ s a m e j u r y ” a s s e s s p u n i s h m e n t a s a s s e s s e d

g u i l t

. 1 2

M o r e o v e r

, t h e r e i s n o i m a g i n a b l e r e a s o n t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f i n v i t e d e r r o r / e s t o p p e l

s h o u l d n o t a l s o a p p l y

, w h e r e a p p r o p r i a t e

, t o p r e v e n t a d e f e n d a n t

— e v e n a d e f

e n d a n t w h o h a s

f o l l o w e d t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e t o i n v o k e h i s r i g h t t o j u r y

- a s s e s s e d p u n i s h m e n t

— f r o m l a t e r

i n s i s t i n g t h a t “ t h e s a m e ” j u r y t h a t f o u n d h i m g u i l t y m u s t a l s o a s s e s s h i s p u n i s h m e n t

. A

d e f e n d a n t w h o p o s i t i v e l y a s k s t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g r a n t a m i s t r i a l t h a t i s l i m i t e d t o t h e

p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e m a y n o t b e h e a r d l a t e r t o c o m p l a i n

, a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t s h i s r e q u e s t

,

t h a t t h e l i m i t e d m i s t r i a l c o m p r o m i s e d h i s r i g h t t o h a v e “ t h e s a m e ” j u r y r e s o l v e b o t h p h a s e s

o f h i s t r i a l

. S e e P r

y s t a s h v

. S t a t e

, 3 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 2

, 5 3 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 9 9 ) ( a p a r t y m a y

n o t a f f i r m a t i v e l y s e e k s o m e a c t i o n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e n c o m p l a i n o n a p p e a l w h e n t h e

t r i a l c o u r t c o m p l i e s w i t h h i s r e q u e s t )

. T h a t s e e m s t o b e w h a t h a p p e n e d h e r e

.

And indeed, Appellant appea rs to have failed to timely invoke his rig ht to have the “same 1 2

jury ” assess punishment in this case

, g iven that his motion for community supervision was not sworn

to “bef ore the trial beg an,” as require d by Article 37.07

, Section 2(b)( 1). T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 37.07 § 2(b) (1). See note 2, ante

.Pete — 14

A t t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h A p p e l l a n t f i r s t r e q u e s t e d a m i s t r i a l o n t h e r e c o r d

, a f t e r a n

e x t e n d e d r e c e s s a n d a n o f f

- t h e

- r e c o r d d i s c u s s i o n i n c h a m b e r s

, h e d i d n o t s p e c i f y w h a t h e

t h o u g h t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s c o p e o f t h e m i s t r i a l s h o u l d b e

. H e d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y a s k t h a t t h e c a s e

b e p u t b a c k i n a p r e

- g u i l t

- p h a s e p o s t u r e

. O f c o u r s e

, n e i t h e r d i d A p p e l l a n t a f f i r m a t i v e l y a s k

t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o g r a n t a m i s t r i a l s o l e l y a s t o p u n i s h m e n t

. T h e m e r e f a i l u r e t o d e s i g n a t e t h e

s c o p e o f h i s r e q u e s t e d m i s t r i a l c a n n o t s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n o f i n v i t e d e r r o r

. S e e T r e j o v

.

S t a t e

, 2 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 8

, 2 6 0 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( a c o u r t m a y n o t i n f e r i n v i t e d e r r o r f

r o m

a r e c o r d t h a t i s s i m p l y s i l e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h e t h e r t h e a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t

t o t a k e t h e a c t i o n h e l a t e r c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t o n a p p e a l )

.

L a t e r

, h o w e v e r

, a f

t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o o k t h e m a t t e r u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t

, a n d a f t e r

a n o t h e r e x t e n s i v e b r e a k

— d u r i n g w h i c h a n y d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s c o p e o f t h e m i s t r i a l t h a t m a y

h a v e o c c u r r e d w a s n o t m e m o r i a l i z e d o n t h e r e c o r d

— t h e t r i a l c o u r t m a d e a p r o n o u n c e m e n t

o n t h e r e c o r d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s c o p e o f t h e m i s t r i a l A p p e l l a n t w a s r e q u e s t i n g : “ T h e

D e f e n s e h a s m a d e a m o t i o n f o r m i s t r i a l w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f t h i s t r i a l

. I ’ m

g o i n g t o g r a n t t h a t m o t i o n f o r m i s t r i a l w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

. ” A p p e l l a n t d i d

n o t s p e a k u p a t t h i s p o i n t t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s a p p a r e n t a s s e r t i o n t h a t A p p e l l a n t

h i m s e l f h a d a s k e d ( p e r h a p s a t s o m e p o i n t d u r i n g o f f

- t h e

- r e c o r d d i s c u s s i o n s ) f o r a m i s t r i a l

o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t o f a n e w p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

. F o r a l l t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

, A p p e l l a n t w a s

c o n t e n t w i t h t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n

. 1 3

Cf

. Loredo v. State

, 159 S.W .3d 920, 923-24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (appe llant failed to 1 3

prese rve err or when the trial court expli citly made its ruling based upon a faulty memory of the voirPete — 15

W e h a v e s a i d t h a t i s s u e s o f p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t a r e “ s y s t e m i c

, ” b y w h i c h w e m e a n t h a t

a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s n o t a t l i b e r t y t o r e v e r s e a c a s e o n t h e b a s i s o f a c l a i m o f t r i a l e r r o r

w i t h o u t f i r s t a d d r e s s i n g a n y i s s u e o f p r e s e r v a t i o n o f e r r o r t h a t m a y s u g g e s t i t s e l f f r o m t h e

r e c o r d

. G i

p s o n v

. S t a t e

, 3 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 1 5 2

, 1 5 9 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 2 )

. W e h a v e a l s o s a i d t h a t

“ [ t ] h e l a w o f i n v i t e d e r r o r p r o v i d e s t h a t a p a r t y c a n n o t t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f a n e r r o r t h a t i t

i n v i t e d o r c a u s e d

, e v e n i f s u c h e r r o r i s f u n d a m e n t a l

. ” W

o o d a l l v

. S t a t e

, 3 3 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 3 4

, 6 4 4

( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 1 )

. W h e n i t a p p e a r s t h a t a n i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t m a y h a v e

r e v e r s e d a c o n v i c t i o n w i t h o u t a d d r e s s i n g a n i s s u e o f p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t

, w e m a y a d d r e s s t h e

i s s u e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e o u r s e l v e s

, o n d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

. S e e

, e

. g

. , R e y n o l d s v

. S t a t e

, 4 2 3

S

. W

. 3 d 3 7 7

, 3 8 3 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 4 ) ; F o r d v

. S t a t e

, 3 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 3 0

, 5 3 2

- 3 3 ( T e x

. C r i m

.

A p p

. 2 0 0 9 ) ; Ma

y s v

. S t a t e

, 2 8 5 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8 4

, 8 8 9 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 9 ) ; H a l e y v

. S t a t e

, 1 7 3

S

. W

. 3 d 5 1 0

, 5 1 5 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 5 )

. B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s w i t h o u t c o n t r a d i c t i o n

t h a t A p p e l l a n t i n f

a c t i n v i t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c o n d u c t a f r e s h p u n i s h m e n t h e a r i n g b e f o r e a

d i f f e r e n t j u r y

, h e s h o u l d n o t b e h e a r d t o c o m p l a i n a b o u t i t i n s u b s e q u e n t h a b e a s c o r p u s

p r o c e e d i n g s o r o n a p p e a l

. 1 4

C O N C L U S I O N

W e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d r e m a n d t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l

dire proce eding s, but appellant’ s counsel took no action to call the trial court’s attention to its

mistake). Her e, if the trial court mis-char acte rized the scope of Appellant’s reque sted mistrial,

Appellant did nothing to make the re cord spe ak the truth.

I t also seems clea

r that Appellant failed to timely invoke his rig ht to have the “same jury ” 1 4

assess punishment in the first place

. See notes 2 & 12, ante

.Pete — 16

c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.

D E L I V E R E D : A p r i l 2 6

, 2 0 1 7

P U B L I S H