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

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 7 1 2

- 1 3

D O N A L D A E K I N S

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

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

T R A V I S C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, 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 M E Y E R S

,

W O M A C K

, J O H N S O N a n d A L C A L A

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , f i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g

o p i n i o n i n w h i c h P R IC E

, K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. K E A S L E R

, J

. , f i l e d a

c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , a n d H E R V E Y

, J

. , j o i n e d

.

O P I N I O N

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

, D o n a l d A e k i n s

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

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

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

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

. W e g r a n t e dAekins 2

t h e S t a t e P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r n e y ’ 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 t o c l a r i f y t h a t ( 1 ) w h e n a 1

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

,

t h e o f f e n s e s a r e t h e “ s a m e ” f

o r d o u b l e

-

j e o p a r d y p u r p o s e s

, a n d ( 2 ) t h e T e x a s L e g i s l a t u r e h a s

n o t m a n i f

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

f e n s e s

, s o ( 3 )

m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r t h o s e “ s a m e ” o f

f e n s e s v i o l a t e d o u b l e

-

j e o p a r d y p r i n c i p l e s

. W e

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

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

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

. 2

I

.

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

e

, A m a n d a

, f

i r s t m e t J e s s i c a P a r n e l l ( a p s e u d o n y m )

, a t a

d o w n t o w n A u s t i n S a l v a t i o n A r m y s h e l t e r i n O c t o b e r o f 2 0 1 0

. A m a n d a a n d J e s s i c a b e c a m e

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

. B u t J e s s i c a w a s

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

, h e k i s s e d h e r n e c k

, a n d h e

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

. ” J e s s i c a f i n a l l y t o l d A m a n d a t h a t i f a p p e l l a n t d i d

n o t s t o p h i t t i n g o n h e r

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

.

T h e A e k i n s f

a m i l y l a t e r l e f

t t h e S a l v a t i o n A r m y s h e l t e r a n d m o v e d i n t o a h o u s e

, w h i l e

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

. J e s s i c a s t a r t e d b a b y s i t t i n g t h e A e k i n s ’ s

t w o c h i l d r e n

, b a s e d o n A m a n d a ’ s p r o m i s e t h a t a p p e l l a n t w o u l d n o t b e t h e r e w h e n s h e c a m e

We g rante d revie w of a single g round: “I s the subsumption theory of Patterson v. State still 1

valid in light of this court’s more rec ent double jeopa rdy and lesser -included of

fense case law? ”

Aek ins v. State

, No. 04–13–00064–CR, 2013 WL 5948188, at *3-4 (Tex

. App.—San 2

Antonio Nov. 6, 2013) (not desig nated f or publication).Aekins 3

o v e r

.

A m a n d a a s k e d J e s s i c a i f s h e w o u l d b a b y s i t h e r c h i l d r e n o n F e b r u a r y 2

, 2 0 1 2

, b e c a u s e

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

. J e s s i c a a g r e e d

, a n d A m a n d a

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

.

W h e n A m a n d a a n d J e s s i c a a r r i v e d

, a p p e l l a n t w a s l y i n g i n b e d w i t h h i s i n f a n t s o n

.

A m a n d a t o l d J e s s i c a t h a t h e w a s “ f i x i n g t o g e t u p a n d g e t d r e s s e d a n d l e a v e

. ” I n s t e a d

,

a p p e l l a n t s t a y e d i n b e d a f t e r A m a n d a l e f

t f o r s c h o o l

. J e s s i c a w a s w i t h h e r t w o c h i l d r e n a n d

t h e A e k i n s ’ s o l d e s t c h i l d i n t h e f r o n t r o o m w h e n a p p e l l a n t c a l l e d h e r i n t o t h e b e d r o o m a n d

a s k e d h e r t o b o t t l e

- f

e e d t h e b a b y

.

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

, w h o w a s l y i n g

n e x t t o h e r w i t h h i s b o t t l e

. A p p e l l a n t g o t u p

, c l o s e d t h e d o o r

, “ p u s h e d s t u f f i n f r o n t o f i t

, ”

a n d t h e n c a m e b a c k o v e r t o J e s s i c a ’ s s i d e o f t h e b e d

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

t o t a k e h e r p a n t s o f

f

. “ H e w a s t e l l i n g m e h e j u s t w a n t e d t o t a s t e m e

. . . . I w a s t r y i n g t o p u s h

h i m o f f m e

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

, l i k e I r e a l l y

d i d n ’ t k n o w w h a t t o d o

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

, a n d h e

a l s o p u t h i s f

i n g e r s i n s i d e h e r v a g i n a a g a i n s t h e r w i l l

.

A f e w m i n u t e s l a t e r

, J e s s i c a ’ s d a u g h t e r k n o c k e d o n t h e b e d r o o m d o o r

, s o J e s s i c a g o t

u p

, g o t a w a y

, l e f

t t h e h o u s e

, a n d w e n t n e x t d o o r t o a n e i g h b o r ’ s h o m e

. S h e t e x t e d A m a n d a

a n d t o l d h e r t h a t “ s h e w a s n ’ t g o i n g t o w a t c h t h e k i d s a n y m o r e b e c a u s e D o n a l d h a d j u s t

s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d h e r

. ” T h e n s h e c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e

. A p p e l l a n t

, m e a n w h i l e

, c a m e o v e r t o t h eAekins 4

n e i g h b o r ’ s h o m e a n d y e l l e d

, “ [ A ] i n ’ t n o b o d y g o i n g t o b e l i e v e y o u a n y w a y

. ”

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

- c o u n t i n d i c t m e n t :

C o u n t 1 : c a u s i n g t h e p e n e t r a t i o n o f J e s s i c a P a r n e l l ’ s f e m a l e s e x u a l o r g a n b y t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s f

i n g e r

,

C o u n t 2 : c a u s i n g t h e p e n e t r a t i o n o f J e s s i c a P a r n e l l ’ s f e m a l e s e x u a l o r g a n b y t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o u t h a n d / o r t o n g u e

, a n d

C o u n t 3 : c a u s i n g J e s s i c a P a r n e l l ’ s f e m a l e s e x u a l o r g a n t o c o n t a c t d e f e n d a n t ’ s

m o u t h

.

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

– t w o p e n e t r a t i o n o f f e n s e s a n d o n e c o n t a c t

o f f e n s e

– a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o 5 5 y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t

, t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y

.

O n a p p e a l

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r C o u n t 3 v i o l a t e d t h e D o u b l e

J e o p a r d y C l a u s e b e c a u s e c o n t a c t i n g a n d p e n e t r a t i n g J e s s i c a P a r n e l l ’ s s e x u a l o r g a n w i t h h i s

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

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

. C i t i n g P a t t e r s o n v

.

S t a t e

, a n d B a r n e s v

. S t a t e

, t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n f o r s e x u a l a s s a u l t 3 4

b y c o n t a c t w a s b a r r e d b y d o u b l e

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

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

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s v a c a t e d 5

t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t f o r s e x u a l a s s a u l t u n d e r C o u n t 3

. 6

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

152 S.W .3d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 3

Barnes v. State

, 165 S.W .3d 75, 88 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.) (holding convictions 4

on g enital-pe netra tion count and g enital-c ontact count wer e based on the same act, so conviction on

the conta ct co unt constituted an unauthoriz ed second conviction for the s ame offense in violation

of the Double J eopar dy

Clause).

Aek ins , 2013 WL 5948188, at *3-4. 5

Id. at *4. 6Aekins 5

b e c o m e k n o w n a s t h e P a t t e r s o n “ i n c i d e n t t o a n d s u b s u m e d b y ” d o c t r i n e

. W e r e a f f i r m t h i s

d o c t r i n e ( w h i c h

, i n s o m e j u r i s d i c t i o n s i s c a l l e d “ t h e m e r g e r d o c t r i n e ” ) a n d r e i t e r a t e t h a t i t

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

. 7

I I

.

T h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t p r o v i d e s

, “ N o p e r s o n s h a l l

. . . b e s u b j e c t f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n c e

t o b e t w i c e p u t i n j e o p a r d y o f l i f e o r l i m b [

. ] ” I n N

o r t h C a r o l i n a v

. P e a r c e

, t h e S u p r e m e 8

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

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s : f i r s t

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

f e n s e

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

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

f e n s e a f t e r

c o n v i c t i o n ; a n d t h i r d

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

f e n s e

. T h i s 9

c a s e i n v o l v e s a m u l t i p l e

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

.

A m u l t i p l e

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

- j e o p a r d y v i o l a t i o n m a y a r i s e e i t h e r i n t h e c o n t e x t o f

l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d o f

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

l e s s e r

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

d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s

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

. 1 0

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

See P atterson , 152 S.W .3d at 94 (He rvey

, J ., concur ring ) (stating that traditional double- 7

jeopar dy analy sis barr ed multipl e convic tions for indece ncy by exposure and ag g rava ted sexual

assault by penetr ation when the former was committed as part of the same criminal act as the latter).

395 U.S. 711 (1969). 8

Id. at 717. 9

Garfias v. State , 424 S.W .3d 54, 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 1 0Aekins 6

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

g e r t e s t s

. T h e s e c o n d t e s t

, “ w h i c h f o c u s e s 1 1 1 2

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

, ” i s t h e b e t t e r k n o w n

. U n d e r t h a t 1 3

s e c o n d a s p e c t o f B l o c k b u r g e r

,

T h e a p p l i c a b l e r u l e i s t h a t

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

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

, t h e t e s t t o b e a p p l i e d t o

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

, i s w h e t h e r e a c h

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

. 1 4

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

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

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

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

. “ I f s o

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

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

. ” 1 5

T h e f i r s t

, l e s s f

a m o u s

, B l o c k b u r

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

a n d d i s t i n c t o n e

, s e p a r a t e d b y t i m e

. I f t h e o f f e n s e i s a s i n g l e c o n t i n u o u s a c t

, w i t h a s i n g l e 1 6

i m p u l s e

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

41 G E O R G E E. D I X & J O H N M. S C H M O L E S K Y , 41 T E X A S P R A C T I C E : C R I M I N A L P R A C T I C E 1 1

A N D P R O C E D U R E § 19.8, at 493 (3d e d. 2011).

Blockburge r v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 1 2

D I X & S C H M O L E S K Y

, supra note 11, at 493. 1 3

Blockburge r , 284 U.S. at 304. 1 4

D I X & S C H M O L E S K Y

, supra note 11, at 493. 1 5

Blockburge r , 284 U.S. at 301-02. 1 6Aekins 7

c o n t i n u u m

, t h e o f

f e n s e s m e r g e t o g e t h e r

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

, ” 1 7

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

, ” o r

, h e r e i n T e x a s

, “ t h e d o c t r i n e o f s u b s u m e d a c t s

. ” I f m o r e 1 8 1 9

See, e.g., People v. Garcia

, 296 P.3d 285, 293 (Colo. Ct. App. 2 0 1 2 ) (“ T o deter mine 1 7

whether a defe ndant’s conduct constituted fac tually distinct acts, and t h er ef ore fac tually distinct

offe nses, we examine various fac tors including whether the acts occur red at differ ent times and wer e

separ ated by intervening events. Convictions not based o n s ep arate offe nses merg e with one

another .”) ( citation omitted).

Blockburge r , 284 U.S. at 302-03; see Hagood v. United States , 93 A.3d 210, 226 (D.C. 1 8

2014) (apply ing the “fr esh impulse” or “for k-in-the- roa d ” t es t and holding that two counts of

possession of a firea

rm during a crime of violence merg ed when, althoug h burg lary and assault wer e

distinct offe nses separ ated by a ten-minute interval, the convictions ar o s e “out of a defe ndant’s

uninterrupted posse ssion of a sing le wea pon during a si ng le act of vi olence .”). Compare Spain v.

United States , 665 A.2d 658, 660-61 (D .C. 1995) ( apply ing “for k in the road” test in holding that

convictions fo r t ak i n g indece nt liberties with a child and assault with intent to commit car nal

knowledg e convic tions did not merg e beca use there wer e two separ ate incidents of sexual assault,

separ ated by time; explaining that such g rea ter and lesser offe nses “will merg e only if they both stem

from a single criminal act, or if the lesser is committed in order to eff ect the g rea ter” ), with W

atson

v. United States, 524 A.2d 736, 742 (D.C. 1987) (entice ment of a minor merg ed with sodomy when

there was “no evidenc e of a b re ak i n time or any new motive evincing a ‘fr esh impulse’”). I n

W atson , the cour

t of appe als addre ssed a situation similar to the prese nt one:

Sodomy require s proof of penetr ation, which is not an element of enticing a minor

child; enticing require s a spec ific intent, while sodom y does not

. Be cause sodomy

and enticing a minor are not nece ssarily “continuous” by nature

, the offe nses do not

merg e under the first phase of the Blockburge r analy sis, i.e., there may be instances

wher e a de fenda

nt could be convic ted of both sodomy and enticing , even w hen the

offe nses are part of a single incident. I n the instant case

, the enticing and the sodomy

wer e cong ruent in time and place

. The asportation of the victim to the bedroom was

part of the continuous offe nse here as there was no evidenc e of a brea k in time or any

new motive evincing a “fr esh impulse” having occur red betwee n appellant’ s pursuit

of his victim and the final a ct of pe netra tion in the victim’s bedroom.

Id. (citation omitted). Be cause the enticing offe nse was incident to, or part and parc el of, the single

,

ong oing criminal act of sodomy

, and the leg islature had not e vinced any intention to have that one

act punished twic e, the two of fense s merg ed. Id. at 743.

See Patterson v. State

, 152 S.W .3d 88, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (noting sexual a ssault 1 9

statutes encompa ss “esc alation of abuse” and “no matter where in the rang e the perpe trator s t o p s,

the offe nse is complete at that point”; but nothing in the sta t u t es i n d i ca ted a leg islative intent to

permit a “stop act i o n ” prosec ution in which ever y motion along the path to penetr ation may be

punished separ ately ; “penile contac t with mouth, g enitals, or anus in the course of penile penetr ation

will be subsumed”).Aekins 8

t h a n o n e s t a t u t o r y o f

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

,

t h e n t h e o f

f e n s e s m e r g e a n d t h e d e f

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

. T h i s “ s i n g l e i m p u l s e ”

a s p e c t o f B l o c k b u r

g e r i s U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t l a w

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

t h o u g h t u p b y T e x a s j u d g e s

. W e a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o i g n o r e o r d e n i g r a t e i t

. A s a l o w e r

c o u r t

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

. A l t h o u g h

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

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

, o t h e r s t a t e

c o u r t s h a v e n o t f

o u n d i t s o

. T h i s w e l l

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

, o f c o u r s e

,

2 0

w h o l l y u n r e l a t e d t o t h e d i s c r e d i t e d “ c a r v i n g d o c t r i n e ” w h i c h w a s p r o p e r l y j e t t i s o n e d i n E x

p a r t e M c W

i l l i a m s

. 2 1

T h e B l o c k b u r

g e r f a c t s e x e m p l i f

y t h e t w o s e p a r a t e t e s t s

. T h e r e

, a d r u g g i s t w a s

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

. H e m a d e o n e 2 2

s a l e o n M o n d a y a n d a n o t h e r s a l e o n T u e s d a y

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

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

- s t a m p e d p a c k a g e

, a n d t h e m o r p h i n e s a l e o n 2 3

See supra note 18 and infra notes 46-51. I ndeed, the bench and bar may find it helpful to 2 0

ref er to some of these out-of-state case s when addre ssing novel double-jeopa rdy scena rios, though

of cour se they

are not require d to do so.

634 S.W .2d 815, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). 2 1

Blockburge r , 284 U.S. at 301. 2 2

Id. (noting the applicable wording of 26 U.S.C. § 692 that require d that all opium and other 2 3

narc otics be sold only “in the orig inal stamped packa g e or from the orig inal stamped packa g e; and

t h e absenc e of appropr iate tax-paid stamps from any of the afor esaid drug s shall be prima fac i e

evidenc e of a

violation of this section”).Aekins 9

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

. T h e d r u g g i s t 2 4

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

a n d t h a t t h e T u e s d a y s a l e

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

– i m p r o p e r p a c k a g i n g a n d

w i t h o u t a w r i t t e n o r d e r

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

o n l y o n c e

. T h e d r u g g i s t w a n t e d h i s t h r e e c o n v i c t i o n s r e d u c e d t o o n e

.

T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t u p h e l d a l l t h r e e c o n v i c t i o n s

. T h e f i r s t B l o c k b u r

g e r t e s t w a s

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

w e r e t w o o f

f e n s e s o r o n e

. T h e C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o s e p a r a t e

2 5

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

, ” n o t i n g t h a t

“ ‘ w h e n t h e i m p u l s e i s s i n g l e

, b u t o n e i n d i c t m e n t l i e s

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

c o n t i n u e

. ’ ” T h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

, “ I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

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

, r e s u l t i n g i n a 2 6

s a l e

, h a d c o m e t o a n e n d

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

, b u t o f a

f r e s h o n e

– t h a t i s t o s a y

, o f a n e w b a r g a i n

. ” T h i s w a s u n l i k e “ c o n t i n u o u s c r i m e s

, ” w h i c h 2 7

Id. (noting the applicable wording of 26 U.S.C. § 696 that require d that all such drug s be 2 4

sold only “in pursuanc e of a written order of the pe rson to whom such ar ticle is sold

. . . on a form

to be issued in blank for tha t purpose by the Commiss ioner of I

nterna l Revenue.” ).

The Court not ed that “[t] he sales char g ed in the sec ond and third counts, althoug h made 2 5

to the same pe rson, wer e distinct and sepa rate sales made at diffe rent times.” Id.

Id. at 302 (quoting “Wharton’s Criminal L aw ( 11th Ed.) § 34”)

. 2 6

Id

. at 303. The Court g ave another example of the “fr esh impulse” or “sepa rate acts” 2 7

branc h of its double-jeopa rdy analy sis. I t discussed a mail b ag- d es t ru ction case in which the

defe ndant had ripped into six differ ent locked mail pouches being transporte d in a railwa y car with

the intent to steal from those bag s. He was convicted of six differ ent counts, one for eac h bag

, and

he complained on appea l that double jeopar dy barr ed conviction for more than one offe nse beca use

he committed just one crime of ripping open the bag s at one time and place

. No, said the SupremeAekins 10

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

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

, o r “ p a r t a n d p a r c e l ” o f

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

. 2 8

T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

– a p p l y i n g t h e s e c o n d t e s t

– t h e n r e j e c t e d t h e d r u g g i s t ’ s a r g u m e n t

t h a t t h e T u e s d a y s a l e

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

, w a s r e a l l y o n e o f f e n s e

. T h e

C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e N a r c o t i c s A c t w a s “ n o t a i m e d a t s a l e s o f t h e f o r b i d d e n d r u g s q u a

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

, i n c l u d i n g t h e

t a x

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

- o r d e r r e g u l a t i o n

. T h u s

, “ b o t h s e c t i o n s w e r e v i o l a t e d 2 9

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

.

I n s u m

, B l o c k b u r

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

- p u n i s h m e n t i s s u e s : t h e “ c o n t i n u o u s

a c t i o n v s

. s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t a c t s ” i s s u e a n d t h e “ o n e a c t v i o l a t e s s e p a r a t e d i s t i n c t s t a t u t e s ”

Court, “‘it was the intention of the lawmake rs to p ro t ec t ea ch and ever y mail bag from felonious

injury ’” and thus eac h crime was complete when eac h mail bag was ripped o p en

. Id. (citing and

quoting Ebeling v. Morgan

, 237 U.S. 625, 629 (1915)) (“A lthough the transac tion of cutting the mail

bag s was in a sense continuous, the complete statutory offe nse was committed ever y time a mail bag

was cut in the manner descr ibed, with the intent c harg ed. The offe nse as to e ach se para te bag was

complete whe n that bag was c ut, irrespe ctive of a ny attack upon, or

mutilation of, any other bag

. .

. . The separa te counts each c harg ed by its dist inctive number the separ ate bag

, and each tim e one

of them was cut there was, as we h av e said, a separ ate offe nse committed ag ainst the statute.

Congr ess evidently

intended to protec t the mail in each sa ck, and to make an attack thereon in the

manner descr ibed a distinct and sepa rate offe nse.”)

.

For example, one rape will fre quently involve the defe ndant’s acts of exposi ng his g enitals, 2 8

then contac ting the victim’s g enitals with his own, then penetr ating the victim’s g enitals with his.

I t is a “continuing ” crime in the sense that the defe ndant commits seve ral criminal acts on the way

to completing the rape

, but the lesser acts of exposure and contac t merg e into the ultimate act of

penetr ation. P a t t er

son

, 152 S.W .3d at 92. I f, on the ot her hand, the actor rape s the s ame woman

five times during the course of an evening

, he, like the defe ndant in Eberling

, may be prosec uted for

five diff ere nt ag g rava

ted sexual assaults; it i s the same c rime committed five se para te times.

Blockburge r , 284 U.S. at 303-04. 2 9Aekins 11

i s s u e

. B u t t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s s a i d t h a t

, f o r p u r p o s e s o f m u l t i p l e

- p u n i s h m e n t a n a l y s i s

,

t h e t w o B l o c k b u r

g e r t e s t s a r e j u s t t o o l s

– n o t t h e b e a l l

, e n d a l l

, o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n

. 3 0

S o m e t i m e s t w o o f

f e n s e s t h a t a r e t h e “ s a m e ” m a y b o t h b e p u n i s h e d ; s o m e t i m e s t w o 3 1

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

. I t a l l d e p e n d s o n t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ’ s i n t e n t

. 3 2 3 3

I n a l i n e o f c a s e s a d d r e s s i n g d o u b l e

- j e o p a r d y a n d j u r y

- u n a n i m i t y i s s u e s i n s e x u a l

a s s a u l t c a s e s

, w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e T e x a s L e g i s l a t u r e ’ s i n t e n t i s t o p u n i s h e a c h d i s c r e t e

a s s a u l t

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

s e p a r a t e l y

, b u t a c r i m i n a l a c t ( s u c h a s e x p o s u r e o r c o n t a c t ) t h a t i s c o m m i t t e d a s p a r t o f a

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

, u l t i m a t e a c t o f p e n e t r a t i o n m a y n o t 3 4

Gonzales v. State

, 304 S.W. 3 d 8 3 8

, 8 4 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Missouri v. Hunter

, 3 0

459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983) (Double J eopar dy Clause does no more than preve nt the sentenc ing court

from prosc ribing g rea ter punishment that the leg islature intended) ).

See Missouri v. Hunter

, 459 U.S. 359, 368 (1983) (eve n when crimes have t h e same 3 1

elements under the Blockburge r test, there is no double-jeopa rdy violation when both are tried in one

prosec ution and the leg islature intended for both offe nses to be separ ately punished); Garza v. State

, 213 S.W .3d 338, 351-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (quoting Hunter

, noting that the Blockburge r test

does not “trump clea

rly expressed leg islative intent,” and concluding that convictions for both

org anized criminal activity and the underly ing criminal offe nse do not violate the Double J eopar dy

Clause).

Bigon v. State

, 252 S.W .3d 360, 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holdin g co n v ictions for

3 2

felony murder and i ntox ication m anslaug hter based on same incident and vict ims violated doubl e

jeopar dy despite differ ence s in the statutory elements beca use the L eg islature d i d not intend to

impose multi ple punishments for the sa me offe nse).

I n Ex parte Ervin

, 991 S.W .2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), we set out a non-exclusive list 3 3

o f considera

tions to help courts deter mine leg islative intent in this context, but the “f o cu s ” o r

“g rava men” of a penal statute is the s ingle “best” indicator in deter mining whether t h e legislature

intended to def

ine and punish more tha

n one off ense. Gonzales , 304 S.W .3d at 848.

See Patterson v. State

, 152 S.W .3d 88, 91–92 (Tex. Crim. App. 200 4 ) (“ T h e s cheme 3 4

encompa sses esca lation of abuse; no matter wher e in the rang e the perpe trator stops, the offe nse isAekins 12

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

, u l t i m a t e a c t

. S t e p s a l o n g t h e w a y t o o n e r a p e m e r g e

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

.

A

. M u l t i p l e S e x u a l A c t s M a y B e P u n i s h e d S e p a r a t e l y

.

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

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

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

i n c l o s e t e m p o r a l p r o x i m i t y

. T h e k e y i s t h a t o n e a c t e n d s b e f o r e a n o t h e r a c t b e g i n s

. T h e 3 5

d e f e n d a n t m i g h t t o u c h a c h i l d ’ s b r e a s t ; t h e n h e t o u c h e s h e r g e n i t a l s

. T w o s e p a r a t e a c t s

, t w o

s e p a r a t e i m p u l s e s

, t w o s e p a r a t e c r i m e s

.

T h i s i s t r u e f

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

, b u t d i f

f e r e n t s u b s e c t i o n s o f 3 6

a s i n g l e s t a t u t e

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

. 3 7 3 8

complete a t that point.”).

I n a pat-y our-he ad-w hile-rubbing -y our-stomac h case

, one might touch the victim’s brea st 3 5

with one hand while simult aneously touching her sexual org an with the other hand. Those are two

separ ate a nd distinct sex ual assaults eve n though the y occur at the same time.

Vick v. State

, 991 S.W .2d 830, 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (noting that, when offe nses that 3 6

are separ ately define d in differ ent statutes, this “is some indication of leg islative intent to authorize

multipl e prose cutions”).

Id

. at 833 (addr e s s ing lang uag e of T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 22.021(a) (1)( B) (i)-( iv) (Ag g rava ted 3 7

Sex ual Assault) prohibiting various penetr ations and contac ts; holding that the L eg islature intended

differ ent subsections of the ag g rava ted-sexual-assa ult statute to constitute separ ate offe nses for

purposes of whether an acc used may be twice prosec uted or punished for the “same ” offe nse beca use

eac h subsection “e ntails differe nt and sepa rate acts to commit the various, prohibited c onduct”)

.

Gonzales v. State

, 304 S.W .3d 838, 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (addr essing lang uag e of 3 8

Ag g rava ted Sex ual Assault, prohibiting causing “the penetr at ion of the anus or sexual org an of a

child by any means” ; “ What is true of the various acts specifie d in the differ ent subsections of this

nature -of- conduct statute is no less true of the various acts specifie d within separ ate and disjunctive

phrases in the same subsection. Either way

, such specific ity in a conduct- oriented statute ordinarily

ref lects a leg islative intent that eac h discrete ly define d act should constit u t e a d i s cre te offe nse.Aekins 13

I n d e c e n c y w i t h a C h i l d

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

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

a n d i n d e c e n c y b y c o n t a c t i n a n o t h e r

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

t w o d i s t i n c t a c t s

. B r e a k i n g d o w n t h a t s t a t u t e e v e n f u r t h e r

, I n d e c e n c y w i t h a C h i l d 3 9

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

— t o u c h i n g o f t h e ( 1 ) a n u s

, ( 2 ) b r e a s t

, o r ( 3 ) g e n i t a l s

. 4 0

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

, b r e a s t

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

.

L i k e w i s e

, S e x u a l A s s a u l t u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n 2 2

. 0 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) c r i m i n a l i z e s t w o s e p a r a t e

a c t s

– p e n e t r a t i n g b y a n y m e a n s ( 1 ) t h e a n u s

, o r ( 2 ) t h e s e x u a l o r g a n

. J u r y u n a n i m i t y i s

r e q u i r e d f

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

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

a s i n g l e d i s t i n c t a c t ( e

. g

. , p e n e t r a t i n g t h e a n u s w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s f

i n g e r

, m o u t h

, o r s e x u a l

o r g a n )

. T h u s

, f

o r e x a m p l e

, t h e S t a t e m i g h t c h a r g e t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h a s i n g l e c o u n t o f 4 1

Penetra tion of the anus constitutes a discrete act f rom penetr ation of the sexual org an, even if they

occur within a short period of time. That both the anus and sexual org an may be anatomica lly located

in the “g enital are a” d o es not rende r the separ ate acts of penetr ation the “same ” offe nse for

double-jeopa

rdy purposes.” ) (c itations omi tted) (e mphasis in origina l).

Loving v. State

, 401 S.W .3d 642, 646-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (indec ency with a child 3 9

by exposure and contac t, though two subsections o f a s i n gl e s tatute, are separ ate and discrete

offe nses; g rava m en of the indece ncy -with-a- child statute is the nature of the prohibited conduct,

reg ardle ss of whether the acc used is char g ed wi t h contact or exposure; exposure offe nse was not

subsumed by the contac t of fense on a trial rec ord that indicated that appellant was masturbating (a

complete e x posure) befor e he c aused the child victim to touch his penis (a complete c ontact))

.

Pizzo v. Stat e

, 235 S.W .3d 711, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“the offe nse o f i n d ec en cy 4 0

with a child by contac t in Section 21.11(a) (1) is a conduct- orient ed offe nse. ‘Sexual contac t,’ as

define d in [now 21.11(c) (1) & (2)], criminalizes three separ ate ty pes of conduct—touching the anus,

touching the breast, and touching the g enitals with the requisite mental s tate. There fo re

, ea ch act

constitutes a differ ent criminal offe nse and juror unanimity is require d as to the commission of any

one of the se ac ts.”).

Cf. Jourdan v. State

, 428 S.W .3d 86, 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (g rava men of T E X

. P E N A L 4 1

C O D E § 22.021(a) (1)( A)(i) (Ag g rava ted Sex ual Assault) is penetr ation; jury was not require d t o

rea ch unanimity with respe ct to the means of penetr ation alleg ed–penis or his fing er–dur ing thatAekins 14

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

m e a n s

– p e n i s

, f

i n g e r

, m o u t h

, o r o t h e r o b j e c t

– i f t h e r e w a s o n e s e x u a l a s s a u l t

, b u t t h e c h i l d i s

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

. W h a t m a t t e r s i s t h e s e x u a l a s s a u l t u p o n

t h e v i c t i m

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

.

B

. A c t s T h a t A r e S u b s u m e d o r M e r g e d i n t o t h e U l t i m a t e A c t M a y N o t B e P u n i s h e d

S e p a r a t e l y

.

A d o u b l e

-

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

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

. P e n e t r a t i o n w i t h o u t e x p o s u r e i s n e x t t o i m p o s s i b l e

.

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

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

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

w i t h t h e p e n i s

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

. T h a t o n e c o n t i n u i n g a c t

,

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

, m a y v i o l a t e t h r e e s e p a r a t e P e n a l C o d e p r o v i s i o n s

, b u t i n

P a t t e r s o n

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

s e x u a l a s s a u l t

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

, u l t i m a t e s e x u a l 4 2

transac tion); Ngo v. State

, 175 S.W .3d 738, 746 & n.27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (unanimity means

ever y juror ag ree s that the defe ndant committed the same, single

, specific criminal act; jurors are not

require d to ag ree upon a single means of commission; “the State could char g e Prince Yussupov with

the murder of Rasputin, alleg ing five d i ffe rent manner s and means—by poisoning, g arr oting,

shooting, stabbing

, or drowning Rasputin. The jury could return a g ener al verdic t if it found that

Prince Yussupov intentionally cause d the death of R asputin by any of those mea

ns; the unanimity

require ment g oes to the act of ‘ca using the death of Rasputin,’ while the jury need not be unanimous

on the pre liminary

fac t issues—whether it wa s by poisoning, g arr oting, e tc.”)

.

Patterson , 152 S.W .3d at 91–92. 4 2Aekins 15

a s s a u l t v i o l a t e t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e

. P a t t e r s o n w a s n o t d e c i d e d o n d o u b l e

- j e o p a r d y 4 3

g r o u n d s

, b u t i n G a r

f i a s v

. S t a t e

, w e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t i n P a t t e r s o n w o u l d b e t h e

4 4

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

, s t a t i n g

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

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

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

B l o c k b u r g e r t e s t

. U n d e r t h e c o g n a t e

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

, w h e n t h e f a c t s

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

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

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

-

j e o p a r d y

p u r p o s e s

, a n d m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t s a r e b a r r e d u n l e s s t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s

c l e a r l y a n d s p e c i f

i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d t h e m

. I n P a t t e r s o n

, t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s

e x p o s u r e

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

— w a s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n

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

. 4 5

T h e P a t t e r s o n r u l e i s a k i n t o “ t h e m e r g e r r u l e ” i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s

. S o m e j u r i s d i c t i o n s

r e q u i r e m e r g e r b y s t a t u t e a n d p r o v i d e b r o a d e r p r o t e c t i o n t h a n t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e

.

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

, i t h a s o n e r o o t p u r p o s e : t o p r e v e n t D o u b l e J e o p a r d y

C l a u s e v i o l a t i o n s

. T h e m e r g e r r u l e p r e v e n t s “ c u m u l a t i v e p u n i s h m e n t o f a d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e 4 6

See id. at 92-94 (He rvey

, J

., concur ring ) (double jeopar dy barr ed multipl e convictions for 4 3

penile exposure as inc ident to penile pene tration for one completed a g g rava ted sexual assault).

424 S.W .3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 4 4

Id. at 63 (c itations omi tted). 4 5

State v. Chesnokov

, 305 P.3d 1103, 1108 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (merg er d o ct ri n e’s 4 6

purpose is to corr ect violations of the prohibition of double jeopar dy ); Commonwealth v. W

eatherill

, 24 A.3d 43 5

, 4 3 7 n.1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (“A merg er question implicates double jeopar dy and

rela tes t o t h e l ega l i t y of a sentenc e.”) ; State v. Ross

, 174 P.3d 628, 635 (Utah 2007) (“A lthough

merg er is codified in statute, it has a constitutional pedig ree as it provides a means to p re v en t

violations of constitutional double jeopar dy protec tion.”); State v. Diaz

, 677 A.2d 1120, 1124 (N.J.

1996) (“The purpose of m erg er is to avoid doubl e punis hment for a single wrong doing.” ); People

v. Hende rson

, 810 P.2d 1058, 1060 (Colo.1991) (ana ly sis of whether convictions should be merg ed

must be based on double- jeopar dy principles).Aekins 16

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

,

w h e n

, i n s u b s t a n c e a n d e f f e c t

, o n l y o n e o f

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

. ” 4 7

T h e m e r g e r r u l e c a n b e s t a t e d a n o t h e r w a y : W h e r e t w o c r i m e s a r e s u c h t h a t t h e o n e

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

, t h e n t h e y s t a n d i n t h e

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

, a n d t h e d e f

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

f o r b o t h

. F o r e x a m p l e

, i n G e o r g i a

, a c h i l d m o l e s t a t i o n b a s e d o n t o u c h i n g t h e c h i l d ’ s v a g i n a

4 8

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

f i n g e r

. A n d i n A l a s k a

, s e c o n d

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

, o r

4 9

c o i n c i d e n t w i t h

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

. C o n v e r s e l y

, 5 0

i n M a s s a c h u s e t t s

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

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

. ] ” 5 1

See State v. Robert

s

, 705 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ohio 1980) (discussing statute codifying 4 7

judicial doctrine of

merg er)

.

Ex parte Pruitt

, 233 S.W .3d 338, 348 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“a cts of g enital-to-g enital 4 8

contac t, which wer e incidental or ‘subsumed’ within the alleg ed incidents of penetr ation for which

ap p ell ant was acquitted in the prior trial, are lesser- included offe nses of these incidents o f

penetr ation” and “will be jeopar dy barr ed.”) ; see also State v. Ross

, 174 P.3d 628, 641 (Utah 2007)

(an underly ing felony that constitutes the ag g rava ting circ umstance merg es with the conviction for

ag g rava ted murder; “To allow the attempted murder char g e to be used as the sole means of

ag g rava tion and as its own separ ate offense permits double counting of the offense in violation of

double jeopar dy

and the mer g er doc trine.”)

.

Castaneda v. State , 727 S.E.2d 543, 544-45 (Ga . Ct. App. 2012). 4 9

Johnson v. State , 762 P.2d 493, 495 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). 5 0

Commonwealth v. Fitzpatri ck

, 4 4 1 N. E

. 2 d 559, 561 (Mass. 1982); see also Faulkner v. 5 1

State

, 109 So.3d 142, 147-48 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (convic tions for fond l i n g and sexual battery

conce rned separ ate events such that offe nses did not merg e u n d e r d o u b le

- je o p a r d y principles; noting,

on the one hand, that when penetra tion is achie ved by

touching , then fondling or molestation is aAekins 17

I n s h o r t

, i n T e x a s

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

, a d e f e n d a n t m a y n o t b e c o n v i c t e d

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

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

. W i t h t h e s e

g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s i n m i n d

, w e t u r n t o t h e d o u b l e

- j e o p a r d y i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e

.

I I I

.

T h e o f f e n s e s i n C o u n t s 2 a n d 3 a r e t h e “ s a m e ” u n d e r t h e l a w

. A p p l y i n g o u r

c o g n a t e

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

, t h e f

a c t s n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e t h e

i n d i c t e d S e c t i o n 2 2

. 0 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) o f f e n s e ( c o n t a c t o f J e s s i c a P a r n e l l ’ s s e x u a l o r g a n b y

d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o u t h ) a r e i n c l u d e d w i t h i n t h e p r o o f n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i n d i c t e d S e c t i o n

2 2

. 0 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) o f

f e n s e ( p e n e t r a t i o n o f J e s s i c a P a r n e l l ’ s s e x u a l o r g a n b y d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o u t h )

.

S i n c e t h e o f

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

-

j e o p a r d y p u r p o s e s

, m u l t i p l e

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

.

A s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e

, t h i s C o u r t h a s a l r e a d y d e t e r m i n e d

– b y l o o k i n g a t t h e E r v i n f a c t o r s a c r o s s

a m u l t i t u d e o f c a s e s

– t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e h a s n o t m a n i f e s t e d a n i n t e n t t o a u t h o r i z e

“ s t o p

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

s e x u a l a s s a u l t

. 5 2

lesser- included offe nse of sexual battery

, but i f ev i d en ce supports separ ate and distinct acts of

fondling and sexual battery

, s ep ar at e char g es do not implicate double jeopar dy

, even when the

criminal ac ts are c losely

connec ted or ba sed on a c ommon nucleus of fa ct).

Of course

, Count One set out a distinct and differ ent act of sexual assault–pene tration of 5 2

J essica’ s fema le sexual org an with the def endant’ s fing er. Suppose that the State had also alleg ed

contact of J essica’ s sexual org an with the defe ndant’s fing er. Two convictions for first contac ting

on the way to penetr ating her se x ual orga n with his fing er as part of a si ng le s exual assault wouldAekins 18

T h e o f f e n s e s a r e a l s o t h e “ s a m e ” u n d e r t h e f i r s t B l o c k b u r

g e r t e s t

. A s t h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s s t a t e d

, “ T h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e t h e c o n t a c t a n d p e n e t r a t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s

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

. R a t h e r

, P a r n e l l ’ s t e s t i m o n y s u p p o r t s a p p e l l a n t ’ s

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

m i n u t e s

. ” 5 3

T h e S P A a s k s h o w t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n i n s t a n c e o f c o n d u c t i s a s i n g l e a c t o r

m u l t i p l e a c t s

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

. I n N e v a d a

, t h e c o u r t a s k s

,

h a s t h e r e b e e n “ a h y p e r t e c h n i c a l d i v i s i o n o f w h a t w a s e s s e n t i a l l y a s i n g l e a c t ” ? T h e 5 4

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

,

A s w i t h o t h e r F i f

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

, t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

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

i m p u l s e ” o r “ f

o r k

- i n

- t h e

- r o a d ” t e s t

. I f a t t h e s c e n e o f

t h e c r i m e t h e d e f

e n d a n t

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

, a n d

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

, t h e n h i s s u c c e s s i v e

merg e and be double-jeopa rdy barr ed. See Patte r

s o n

, 152 S.W .3d at 92 (exposure and contac t

“subsumed” by penetr ation; multipl e convictions not permitted). I t is all one co n t i n u o us act with

a single criminal impulse. But penetr ating with his fing er may be a separ ate criminal act (and

separ ate se x ual assault) f

rom pene trating with his mout h or penis or some othe r objec t.

Aek ins , 2013 WL 5948188, at *4. 5 3

Townsend v. State

, 734 P.2d 705, 710 (Ne v.1987) (“[T]wo sexual assaults did not occur

. 5 4

T o wn s en d simply beg an lubricating the victim’s vag inal are a, took his hand awa y

, put m o re

lubricating substance on his fing er and then penetr ated the child’s vagi n a. Such a hy perte chnica l

division of what was essentially a single act is not sustainable.”)

. See also State v. Diaz

, 677 A.2d

1120, 1124 (N.J. 1996) (ana ly zing the evidenc e i n t erms of (1) time and place of eac h purported

offe nse; (2) whether the proof as to one count would be a nece ssary ingredient to prove another

count; (3) whether one act was an int eg ral part of a larg er s ch em e or episode; (4) the i ntent of t he

acc used; (5) a

nd the punishment for the of fense s).Aekins 19

i n t e n t i o n s m a k e h i m s u b j e c t t o c u m u l a t i v e p u n i s h m e n t [

. ] 5 5

W e h a v e u s e d t h e “ f

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

. I n L o

p e z v

.

S t a t e

, w e h e l d t h a t a n o f f e r t o s e l l d r u g s a n d t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e d r u g s t o c o m p l e t e t h a t 5 6

s p e c i f i c s a l e i s o n e s i n g l e o f

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

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

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

. ” 5 7

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

- s e n s e p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t r e j e c t “ a s t e r i l e l i t e r a l i s m

w h i c h l o s e s s i g h t o f t h e [ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ] f o r e s t f o r t h e [ s t a t u t o r y ] t r e e s

. ” A c o m p l e t e

, 5 8

u l t i m a t e s e x u a l a s s a u l t i s o n e a c t

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

n e w “ f o r k i n t h e r o a d ” o r a “ f

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

. A r a p e

i s o n e a c t f

r o m b e g i n n i n g t o e n d ; a n i n c i d e n t o f o r a l s e x i s o n e a c t f r o m b e g i n n i n g t o e n d

.

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

, t h e n f o r c e d o r a l s e x

, t h e n r a p e d h e r a g a i n

,

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

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

. A l l f o u r o f t h o s e 5 9

Hagood v. United St ates

, 93 A.3d 210, 226 (D.C. 2014) (some internal quotation marks 5 5

and citations omitted). This test is rooted in Blockburge r itself

. See Blockburge r v. United States

, 284 U.S. 299, 301, 303 ( 1932) (setting out the “fr esh impulse” test); Ebeling v. Morgan , 237 U.S.

625 (1915).

108 S.W .3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 5 6

Id. at 300-01. 5 7

See Ja s t er v. C omet II Constr., Inc

., 438 S.W .3d 556, 572 (Tex. 2014) (Will ett, J

., 5 8

concur ring ) ( “Judges must navig ate a narr ow course ‘betwe en a sterile literalism which loses sight

of the fore st for the tree s, and a proper scruple ag ainst imputing meaning s for which the words g ive

no war rant.’ For that rea son, ‘[l] anguag e ca n n o t be interpre ted apar t from context.’ Meaning is

bound to and bound by

context.”) (citations omitted).

See Patterson

, 152 S.W .3d at 92 (two distinct, completed incidents of penile penetr ation 5 9

separ ated by

a bathr oom brea k g ave r ise to two separ ate punishments).Aekins 20

c o m p l e t e

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

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

, b u t

t h o s e m e r g e w i t h t h e c o m p l e t e d

, u l t i m a t e s e x u a l a s s a u l t

. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d

, a n a c t o f

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

r o m a n e x p o s u r e

i n c i d e n t t o a c o n t a c t o r p e n e t r a t i o n

. A n i n d e c e n t c o n t a c t t h a t i s n o t s i m p l y p r e p a r a t o r y t o 6 0

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

, u l t i m a t e a c t

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

. L i k e w i s e

,

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

, w i t h a s e x t o y a n d w i t h a p e n i s ) 6 1

c o n s t i t u t e t w o d i s t i n c t u l t i m a t e a c t s

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

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

, e v e n t h o u g h

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

– T e x a s P e n a l C o d e

§ 2 2

. 0 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A )

– w i t h o u t o f f e n d i n g t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e

.

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

s e p a r a t e a c t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s m o u t h c o n t a c t i n g a n d p e n e t r a t i n g J e s s i c a ’ s s e x u a l o r g a n

.

T w o c o n v i c t i o n s

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

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

, a r e b a r r e d u n d e r t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e

. W e a f f i r m 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

.

D e l i v e r e d : O c t o b e r 2 2

, 2 0 1 4

P u b l i s h

Loving v. State

, 401 S.W .3d 642, 646-49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (masturba tion exposure 6 0

was separ ate act and separ ate offe nse from exposure by having child touch defe ndant’s penis; dual

convictions did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause).

But if there wer e only one distinct act of sexual assault by penetr ation, the j ury need not 6 1

be unanimous on whe ther that a ct was c ommitt ed with a sex toy or a pe nis. Jourdan v. State , 428

S.W .3d 86, 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting tha t “the g rava men of the [Penal Code] subsection

is penetr ation, not the various unspecifie d ‘mea ns’ by which that penetr ation may be perpe trated” ).