### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

NO. 03-17-00033- CR

Ex parte John Phillip Devine III

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 427 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 15- 3025 84, H ONO RAB LE TAMARA NEEDLES, J UDGE P RESIDING

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

We withdraw the opinion and judgme nt in this appea l dated M ay 1 1 , 2018, and substitut e the f

ollowing opinion and judg ment. J ohn Phill ip Devine I I I filed this interlocutory appea l challeng ing the district court’s order denying a combination motion to quash his indictment and pretria l application for wr it of habea s corpus. In the underlying prosec ution, Appellant is char g ed with five felony offe nses: three
counts of sexual assault of a child, one count of indece ncy with a child by contac t, and one count of indece ncy with a child by exposure. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.11(a) (1), (2), (d), 22.011(a) (2), (f)

.

In a single issue on appea l, Appellant cont ends that the district court should have quashed his indictment beca use counts two through five are subsumed within the offe nse alleg ed in
count one, placing him at risk of multipl e punishments for the same offe nse in v i o l at i o n of the Double J eopar dy Clause of the Fifth Amendment t o t h e Un i t ed States Constit ution. Be cause weconclude that Appellant’s multipl e-punishments claim is not cog nizable on pretria l habea s, we will

aff irm the district court’s or der.

DISCUSSIO N Appellan t’s pretr ial habeas appl ication contends that his ind ictm ent viol a te s protec tion aff orded by Doub le Jeopardy Clause against m ultip le pun ishme nts f or sam e off

ense The Double J eopar dy Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constit ution provides that no person shall be subjected to twic e having life or limb in jeopar dy for
t h e s am e offe nse. U.S. Const. amend. V. The Double J eopar dy Clause protec ts ag ainst mul t i p l e
prosec utions and multipl e punishments for the same offe nse by prohibiting: (1) a second prosec ution fo r t h e s am e offe nse afte r an acquittal, (2) a second prosec ution for the same offe nse after a conviction, and (3) multipl e punishments for the same offe nse. Garfias v. State , 424 S.W .3d 54, 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The Double J eopar dy provisions of the United States Constit ution and the
Texas Constit ution provide substantially identical protec tions. Ex parte Mitchell , 977 S.W .2d 575,
580 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Marshall , 814 S.W .2d 789, 792 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref ’d) (conc luding that Texas Constit ution’s prohi b ition ag ainst multipl e punishments for same offe nse is no broade r than g uara ntee under Double J eopar dy Clause of fede ral constitution). Her e, Appellant’s double-jeopa rdy claim does not alleg e that he is subject to multipl e prosec utions for the

same offe nse but rathe r, that his indictment as pleade d violates the protec tion aga i n s t multipl e punishments.

2Cognizabili ty on pretr ial hab eas is threshold issu e Appellant bring s this habea s appea l asser ting his double-jeopa

rdy claim befor e being
t ri ed u nder the indictment that he attacks. The Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls has stated t h at pretria l habea s, followed by an interlocutory appea l, is an extraordinary reme dy

. Ex parte Ingram , 533 S.W .3d 887, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); Ex parte Perry , 483 S.W .3d 884, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Acc ording ly , whether a claim is c og nizable on pretria l ha beas is a threshold issue for
courts to addre ss befor e the merits of the claim may be resolved. Ex parte Ellis , 309 S.W .3d 71, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Paxton , 493 S.W .3d 292, 297 (Tex. App.— Da l l as 2 0 16, pet. ref ’d). The Court of Criminal Appea ls has admonished appellate courts to be “ca ref ul to ensure that

a pretria l writ is not misused to secur e pretria l appellate revie w of matters that in actua l fac t should not be put befor e appe llate cour ts at the pre trial stag e.” Ex parte Ellis , 309 S.W .3d at 79 (interna l citations omitted). Resolving the merits of a noncog nizable claim in a pretria l h ab eas appea l is a misuse of the writ. Id .; Ex parte Pax ton , 493 S.W .3d at 298.

Cer tain f actor s deter m ine w hether issue is cognizable on pretrial habeas Courts consider a varie ty of fac tors in deter mining whether an issue is cog nizable on pretria l habea s. Ex parte W eise , 55 S.W .3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). These fac tors include:
(1) whether resolution of a claim may be aided by development of a trial rec ord, Ex parte Smith , 185 S.W .3d 887, 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), (2) whether the habea s application ra i s es a co nstitut ional rig ht that includes a rig ht to avoid trial, Ex parte I

ngram , 533 S.W .3d at 892, and (3) whethe r “p ro t ec t i o n o f the applicant’ s substantive rig hts or the conser vation of judicial resour ces w ould be better serve d by

interlocutory

revie w,” id . at 891–92.

3(1) Resolution of Appellan t’s c laim m ay be aided by developme nt of record at trial Pretrial habea s relief is g ener ally unavailable “whe n the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a rec ord at trial.” Id

. at 892; see Ex par te S mi t h , 1 8 5 S

. W

. 3 d at 893 (conc luding that claim was not ripe for revie w and not c og nizable in pretria l writ of habea s corpus beca use State had not had opportunity t o d ev el o p complete fac tual rec ord during trial). In the specific context of indece ncy and sexual assault case s, whether cer tain sexual a cts char g ed ag ainst

a defe ndant are separ ate offe nses or whether they wer e incident to and subsumed by a sexual-assault char g e is a deter

mination that depends on the fac ts of the case . Maldonado v. State , 461 S.W .3d 144, 148–50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (holding that offe nses wer e not fa ctually subsumed beca

use there

was evidenc e that separ ate and distinct indece ncy -by -conta ct offe nses occur red at other times in addition to contac t a ssociated with penetration offense s); accord United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp ., 344 U.S. 218, 224 (1952) (“Whether an ag g reg ate of acts constitute a single course of conduct and there fore a s i n gl e o ffense, or more than one, may not be capa ble of asce rtainment

mere ly from the ba

re a lleg ations of an in[ dictment] and may have to a wait the trial on the f

acts.” ).
As the C o u rt of Criminal Appea ls has noted, “A person who commits more than one sexual act
ag ainst the same pe rson may be convic ted and punished f or ea ch sepa

rate and discre te ac t, even if those acts wer e committed in close temporal proxi mity

. The key is that one act ends befor e another act be g ins.” Aek

ins v. State , 447 S.W .3d 270, 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

4Her e, the probable -ca use aff idavit in the rec ord—whic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to o k ju d ic ial notice of at the evidentiar y hear ing on A

ppellant’s habe as application —provides some indication 1
of the fac ts of this case . The aff idavit summarizes the victim’s acc ount o f t h e sexual acts that Appellant alleg edly p erformed on her and states her rec ollection that “it happene d multipl e times throug hout the night.” Whether these acts amount to a single o ff en s e or multipl e offe nses, i.e., whether one act ended befor e another act beg an, will depend on the evidenc e adduce d at trial.
Deve lopment of a re cord at tr ial may aid in the re solution of Appellant’s claim; there fore , it is not
y et ripe for appellate revie w. The fac t that development of a rec ord at trial may aid in the resolution of Appe llant’s claim indicates that his claim is not cognizable on pre trial habe as.

(2) Appellan t’s habeas appl ication raises no consti tu ti onal right that includ es right to avoid trial The Court of Criminal Appea ls has deter mined that pre t rial habea s relief may be available when the habea s application raises a constitutional right that includes a rig ht to avoid trial.
Ex parte Ingram , 533 S.W .3d at 892. For example, a pretria l writ of habea s corpus is usually the
proper proce dural vehicle to raise a double-jeopa rdy claim alleg ing “succ essive prosec utions for the

On a p p ea l , d efe nse counsel contends that althoug h the di strict court took judicial notice 1 o f th e p r o b a

b le

- c a u s e a f f id a v it , it is n o t e v id e n c e . B ut h e w a iv e d th a t o b je c ti o n wh e n h e a f

f ir ma ti v e ly stated at the hear ing on the habea s application that he had “no objection” to the court taking judicial notice of the probable -ca

use aff idavit. See Broussard v. Sta t e , 5 9 8 S .W.2d 873, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (conc luding that defe ndant’s failure to o b j ec t t o t ri al court’s taking judicial notice of evidenc e from defe ndant’s previous trial forf eited defe ndant’s appellate complaint about propriety of such judicial notice); Duke v. State , No. 05-10-00577- CR, 2011 Tex. App. L EXI S 5230, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Dallas J uly 12, 2011, no pet.) (not desig nated for publication) (conc luding that defe nse counsel “wa ived any objection to the trial court taking judicial notice of the probable cause aff idavit” by aff irmatively stating that he had “no objection” to trial court taking judicial notice of entirety of files in two case s). 5same offe nse.” Gonzalez v. State , 8 S.W .3d 640, 643 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Ex parte

Robinson , 641 S.W .2d 552, 553–56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)). In such case s, requiring a defe ndant
to g o throug h tri al b ef

ore appea ling the succe ssive-prose cutions claim is inconsistent with the double-jeopa

rdy g uar an t ee ag ainst being consec utively tried for the same offe nse. Id

. (citing Ex parte Robinson , 641 S.W .2d at 554).

Howeve r, a claim alleg ing violation of the constitutional prohibition ag ainst multipl e punishments f

or the same offe nse—as Appellant alleg es her e—does not include the rig ht to avoid trial beca use a multipl e-puni s h m en t s claim “ca n be fully vindicated on appea l following final judgme nt.” Ex parte W

atkins , 73 S.W .3d 264, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“To be sure, the Double
J eopar dy Clause protects ag ainst being twice convicted for the s ame crime, an d t h at as p ec t of t he rig ht can be fully vindicated on appea l following final judgme nt[ .]”); Gonzalez , 8 S.W .3d at 643 n.9;
Ex parte Robinson , 641 S.W .2d at 554; accord Abney v. United States , 431 U.S. 651,660 (1977). A multiple-punishments claim that can be fully vindicated on appea l does not entitle Appellant to avoid trial and is ther efor e not cognizable on pretrial ha beas. (3) No sho w i n g that Appellan t’s rights or judicial resourc es bette r serve d by interlocutor y revie w Fur ther, Appellant’s claim is not cognizable on pretria l habea s beca use he has made

no showing that “the protec tion of [hi s] substantive rig hts or the conser vation of judicial resour ces would be better serve d by interl o cu t ory revie w.” Ex parte Ingram , 533 S.W .3d at 891–92. Appellant has not shown why interlocutory revie w of his multipl e-punishment claim is appropr iate when punishment has not y et been imposed on him by the trial court. See United States v. Martinez , 599 F. Supp. 2d 784, 794 (W.D. Tex. 2009) (noting that dang er of multipl e punishments for single

6offe nse “is only inchoate at the ti m e o f ch arging and does not become full-fledg ed until afte r

sentenc ing on purportedly multipl icitous counts”); see also Hopkins v. State , No. 05-07-01697- CR,
2009 Tex. App. L EXI S 3133, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 7, 2009, pet. ref ’d) (not desig nated for publication) (citing United States v. Koonce , 885 F.2d 720, 722 (10th Cir. 1989) (“Unless and until defe ndant rec eives some punishment from the district court that is arg uably multipl e, the issue is not ripe for revie w.”) ). In the absenc e of any showing that protec tion of Appellant’s substantive rig hts

or the conser

vation of judicial resour ces would be better serve d by interlocutory revie w, Appellant’s claim is not cog nizable on pretrial ha beas.

CONCLUSION
We concl u d e that Appellant failed to show that his multipl e-punishments claim is cogni z ab l e o n a pretria l writ of habea s corpus. See Ex parte Ellis , 309 S.W .3d at 79; Ex parte 2
W atkins , 73 S.W .3d at 273; Gonzalez , 8 S.W .3d at 643 n.9; Ex parte Robinson , 641 S.W .2d at 554.
Acc ording ly , w e c a

n n o t c o nclude that the district court err ed by denying Appellant’s reque sted relief

. We affir m the district court’s orde r. 3

In the absence of this showing , we do not rea ch the mer its of Appellant’s claim. See Ex 2 parte Ellis , 309 S.W .3d 71, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Paxton , 493 S.W .3d 292, 297 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pe t. ref’ d). As Appellant’s counsel has acknowledg ed, “the issues(s) rais ed b y the Appellant in this 3 case are identical to the issues raised in Ex parte Chapa , ca u s e n o . 0 3 -1 8-00104-CR.” For the rea sons set forth in that opinion denying rehe aring , we l ikewise deny rehe aring here

. See Ex parte Chapa , No. 03-18-00104-CR, 2018 Tex. App. L EXI S 6635, at *31–33 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug

. 22, 2018, no pet. h.) (af firming trial court’ s order denying ha

beas r elief a fter c oncludingthat defe ndant’s multiple-punishments double-jeopar dy claim is not cog nizable on pretrial ha beas)

. 7J eff Rose, Chief J ustice
Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Goodwin Affir med on Motion for Rehea ring Filed: September

25, 2018 Do Not Publish

8