## 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 5 9 1

- 1 3

E X P A R T E E R I C M I C H A E L H E I L M A N

, A p p l i c 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 N I N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

J E F F E R S O N C O U N T Y

N E W E L L

, 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

.

I a g r e e t h a t a p p l i c a n t f

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

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

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

s t a t e j a i l f

e l o n y c h a r g e

. I j o i n t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n b e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h e m a j o r i t y i s e x a c t l y

r i g h t t h a t t h i s c a s e i s i n i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t w i t h P h i l l i

p s v

. S t a t e a n d t h a t P h i l l i p s s h o u l d

b e o v e r r u l e d

. I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y t o e x p l a i n w h y I b e l i e v e t h e a t t e m p t s t o h a r m o n i z e t h i s c a s e

w i t h P h i l l i

p s f a i l

.

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

. ” I n P h i l l i p s

, t h e

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

a c t s a n d t h o s eHeilman Concurr ing O pinion - Pag e 2

b a s e d u p o n “ p u r e l a w

. ” P h i l l i p s v

. S t a t e

, 3 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d 6 0 6

, 6 1 7 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 1 )

.

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e C o u r t

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

a l i m i t a t i o n s f

a c t u a l d e f

e n s e i s “ r e p a r a b l e

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

- o f

l i m i t a t i o n s b a r i s n o t

. I d

.

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

o f b e i n g r e m e d i e d o r m a d e g o o d

. W E B S T E R ’ S T H IR D N E W I N T E R N A T IO N A L D IC T IO N A R Y

1 9 2 3 ( 2 0 0 2 )

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

o r m a d e g o o d

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

c o m m i t t e d o n O c t o b e r 1 3

, 2 0 0 8

. I t w a s f i l e d o n D e c e m b e r 2 2

, 2 0 1 0

. T h e r e i s n o t o l l i n g

l a n g u a g e

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

. U n d e r A r t i c l e 1 2

. 0 2 o f t h e T e x a s

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

. T E X

.

C O D E C R IM

. P R O C

. A N N

. a r t

. 1 2

. 0 2 ( W e s t 2 0 0 8 )

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

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

.

A p p l y i n g P h i l l i

p s v

. S t a t e

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

1 0 0 % p u r e l a w w i t h n o a d d i t i v e s o r p r e s e r v a t i v e s

. P h i l l i p s

, 3 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 1 7

. A s t h i s

C o u r t h e l d i n P h i l l i

p s :

B u t P r o c t o r g o v e r n s s t a t u t e

- o f

- l i m i t a t i o n s d e f

e n s e s t h a t a r e

b a s e d o n f

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

p a r a g r a p h

, ” “ e x p l a n a t o r y a v e r m e n t s

, ” o r e v e n “ i n n u e n d o

a l l e g a t i o n s

, ” t h a t s u f

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

,

a t l e a s t o n t h e f

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

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

, n o t

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

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

.Heilman Concurr ing O pinion - Pag e 3

I d

. A n d i n t h i s c a s e

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

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

. 1

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

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

. T h e

C o u r t r e a c h e d i t s h o l d i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e S t a t e ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h i s c a s e d i d n o t i n v o l v e

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

. P h i l l i p s

, 3 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d

a t 6 1 7 ; s e e a l

s o A c t s 1 9 9 7

, 7 5 t h L e g

. , C h

. 7 4 0

, § 3 ( “ T h e c h a n g e i n t h e l a w m a d e b y t h i s A c t

d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a n o f

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

b e f o r e t h e e f

f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s A c t

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

t h o u g h t h i s A c t h a d n o t t a k e n e f f e c t

. ” )

. I n e s s e n c e

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

, b y i t s

o w n t e r m s

, d i d n o t a p p l y

, s o t h e r e w a s o n l y a “ p l a i n v a n i l l a l i m i t a t i o n s c l a i m ” r a t h e r t h a n a n

i s s u e o f e x p o s t f

a c t o l e g i s l a t i o n

. P h i l l i

p s

, 3 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 2 4 ( K e l l e r

, P

. J

. , d i s s e n t i n g )

. T h i s

C o u r t ’ s r e s p o n s e w a s t e l l i n g :

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

t h e s a m e

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

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

.

I d

. a t 6 1 7

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

P h i l l i p s o n l i f e s u p p o r t

.

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

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

“Resurr ection” me ans the a ct or fa ct of rising ag ain from a n inferior state (a s death, 1

deca y , disuse) into a super ior one. W E B S T E R ’ S T H I R D N E W I N T E R N A T I O N A L D I C T I O N A R Y 1937

(2002).Heilman Concurr ing O pinion - Pag e 4

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

l a w s

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

.

C a r m e l l v

. T

e x a s

, 5 2 9 U

. S

. 5 1 3

, 5 3 0

- 3 1 ( 2 0 0 0 )

. C o n t r a r y t o t h e P h i l l i p s m a j o r i t y ’ s r e a d i n g

o f C a r m e l l

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

v i o l a t i o n

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

. I f t h e r e h a d b e e n o n l y a 2

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

, t h e n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s

d e c i s i o n i n J

o h n s o n

– t w o w e e k s a f

t e r C a r m e l l w a s d e c i d e d

– w o u l d m a k e n o s e n s e

. I n

J o h n s o n

, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o e x p o s t f a c t o q u e s t i o n

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

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

. J o h n s o n v

. U

n i t e d S t a t e s

, 5 2 9

U

. S

. 6 9 4

, 7 0 2

- 0 3 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; s e e a l s o O r t iz v

. S t a t e

, 9 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9

, 9 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 )

.

C o n t r a r y t o t h e m a

j o r i t y ’ s r e a s o n i n g i n P h i l l i p s

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t w a s a l w a y s c o n c e r n e d

w i t h e x p o s t f

a c t o l e g i s l a t i o n

, n o t e x p o s t f a c t o r e s u l t s

.

The c onfusion seems to flow fr om mix ing the differ ent Calder v. Bull cate g ories. The 2

Phillips majority

reg arde d the statute at issue a s belong ing to the sa me Calder v. Bull cate g ory as

the statute at issue in Stogner , namely the sec ond Calder v. Bull cate g ory wher e a sta tute

ag g rava ted or made the cr ime g rea ter than w hen committed. Phillips , 362 S.W .3d at 616. B ut

the statute at issue in Stogner was fa cially

retroa ctive. Id. Consequently , the majority applied

Carmell , a ca se involving a statute that reduc ed the qua ntum of proof ne cessa

ry to support a

conviction in a pending case –a four th Calder v. Bull cate g ory –to justi fy

the holding tha t a pure ly

judicial application of a

statute violates the prohibition ag ainst ex post facto leg islation. Id. at

617 (“A nd, in Carmell , the Supreme Court he ld that the retroa ctive application of statutes that

are not expressly

and fa cially

retroa ctive nonethe less violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.”) . By

compar ing a

pples to orang es, the majority in Phillips obscure d the fa ct that neither cate g ory

involves a pure retroa ctive judicial application of a fa cially prospec tive statute like the situation

prese nt in Phillips . Simpl y put, a succ essful ex post facto claim invalidates a statute, not the

judicial application of it. B eca use there was no ex post facto statute involved in Phillips , any

discussion of an ex post facto violation was nec essar ily dicta.Heilman Concurr ing O pinion - Pag e 5

T o b e c l e a r

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

e n d a n t m u s t o b

j e c t t o

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

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

. N o r d o I r e a d t h e m a j o r i t y ’ s h o l d i n g i n t h i s c a s e t o s a y t h a t a n e x

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

. B u t I j o i n t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n

b e c a u s e P h i l l i

p s d i d n o t i n v o l v e e x p o s t f a c t o l e g i s l a t i o n ; i t i n v o l v e d a “ p l a i n

- v a n i l l a

l i m i t a t i o n s c l a i m

. ” P h i l l i p s

, 3 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 2 4 ( K e l l e r

, P

. J

. , d i s s e n t i n g )

. T h i s C o u r t h e l d

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

, a n d I d o n o t b e l i e v e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o n t h e s c o p e

o f P r o c t o r t o “ f

a c t

- b a s e d ” l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e n s e s w a s w a r r a n t e d

. 3

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

. P a u l s o n v

. S t a t e

,

2 8 S

. W

. 3 d 5 7 0

, 5 7 1 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 0 )

. B u t s t a r e d e c i s i s i s n o t a n i n e x o r a b l e

c o m m a n d

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

, t h i s C o u r t m a y

r e c o n s i d e r i t s p r e c e d e n t w h e n : ( 1 ) t h e o r i g i n a l r u l e o r d e c i s i o n w a s f l a w e d f r o m t h e o u t s e t ;

( 2 ) t h e r u l e ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n p r o d u c e s i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s ; ( 3 ) t h e r u l e c o n f l i c t s w i t h o t h e r

p r e c e d e n t

, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e o t h e r p r e c e d e n t i s n e w e r a n d m o r e s o u n d l y r e a s o n e d ; ( 4 ) t h e

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

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

J udg e Mey ers a

rg ues in his dissent that this Court should overrule Proctor altog ether 3

rathe r than Phillips . Neither party arg ues that such a ction is nece ssary to the resolution of the

case . More importantly , doing so w ould not resolve this case beca use Judge Me y ers’ relianc e

upon Y ount overlooks that the c harg ing instrument in Y ount was not subject to an a bsolute

limit ations bar. State v. Y ount , 853 S.W .2d 6, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (def endant indicted f

or

involuntary

manslaug hter a

nd reque sted jury

instruction on lesser-inc luded offe nse of DWI even

though it wa s barr ed by

the statute of limitations). Had the c ase pr ocee ded in fe lony court rather

than misdemeanor

court, then a

pure a pplication of Y

ount uninfluence d by Proctor would allow

for the de nial of re lief. That Phillips would require the denial of relief in felony court but not in

misdemeanor c ourt furthe r empha siz es to me how unwor kable the holding in Phillips is.Heilman Concurr ing O pinion - Pag e 6

u n d e r l y i n g t h e r u l e

, o r t h a t p l a c e u n n e c e s s a r y b u r d e n s o n t h e s y s t e m ; a n d ( 5 ) t h e r e a s o n s t h a t

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

. E x p a r t e L e w i s

, 2 1 9 S

. W

. 3 d

3 3 5

, 3 3 8 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 0 7 )

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

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

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

, o r c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e

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

. P a u l s o n

, 2 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t 5 7 1

.

I j o i n t h e m a

j o r i t y b e c a u s e I b e l i e v e P h i l l i p s q u a l i f i e s a s t h a t t y p e o f p r e c e d e n t

. T h a t

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

c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s f

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

. T h e m a

j o r i t y i s c o r r e c t ; 4

e i t h e r t h i s c a s e g o e s o r P h i l l i p s d o e s

. L i k e t h e m a

j o r i t y

, I v o t e t h a t i t ’ s P h i l l i p s

.

F i l e d : M a r c h 1 8

, 2 0 1 5

P u b l i s h

Whil e Judge Johnson diss ents, she ag ree s that appellant is not entitled to relief. Judge

4

Mey ers doe s not quite say in his diss ent that appe llant is estopped from bring ing this cla im on

appea l, but his reliance upon Ex parte Yount and his ca ll to overrule Proctor seems to sug g est it.

J udg e Alca la’s ca ll to only overr ule par t of Phillips further

demonstrates to me tha t Phillips was

built upon an unstable foundation.