L o v ill v . S ta te , 2 8 7 S .W .3 d 6 5 , 7 6 -7 7 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 8 ). 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0401- 09
A M BE R LO V I LL , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE THI RTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

NUECES CO UNTY K EASLE R , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on of t he C our t i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., M E YE RS , P RI CE , W OMACK , H ERVEY , H OL C OM B , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . J OHNS ON , J. , f i l ed a c onc ur r i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h W OMACKand C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . O P I N I O N T he C orpus C hr i s t i C our tof A ppeal s hel d thatA m berL ovi l l ’ s s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on compl ai ntw as pr es erved bec aus e, among other t hi ngs , every one under s t ood hercompl ai nt
a n d s h e p r e s e n t e d a s e l e c t i v e p r o s e c u t i o n c o mp l a i n ti n a m o t i o n f o ra n e w t r i a l
. We 1 di s agr ee. U ndert he part i cul arf a ct s her e, L ovi l l for fei t ed hers el ect i ve pr os ecut i on compl ai ntL O V I L L —2

for appel l at e purpos es beca us e herr evoca t i on pr ocee di ng s t at ement s w er e nots peci fi c and tim e ly as re q u ir e d b yR u le 3 3 .1 o f th e T e x a s R u le s o f

A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re . Backg r ound T he St at e char ged L ovi l l w i t h t w o count s of for gery . I n J anuary2005, pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , L ovi l l pl ed gui l t y t o t he char ges and fi l ed an appl i cat i on forpr obat i on. A ft er accep t i ng L ov i l l ’s pleas and fi nd i ng her guil t y , t he t ri al j ud ge sentenced L ov i l l t o tw o y ears ’ confi nementi n a s t at e-

j ai l fac i l i t y . T he j udge al s o or der ed Lovi l l t o paya $1, 000 fi ne and $700 i n r es t i tut i on. I n acc or dance w i t h t he pl ea agr eement , t he j udge s us pended t he t erm of i m pr i s onm entand pl ace d L ovi l l on comm uni t y s upervi s i on for t hr ee y ear s . T he tr i al j udge d i r e c t e d Lo v i l l t o c o mp l ywi t h s e v e r a l t e r ms a n d c o n d i t i o n s wh i l e u n d e r s u p e r v i s i o n . S o me
o f th o se ter m s a n d c o n d iti o n s re q u ire d L o v ill to :

• “A voi d i nj ur i ous orvi ci ous habi t s and or [s i c] , avoi d t he us e of .
. . nar cot i cs oranyot hercontr ol l ed s ubs t ance s and s ubm i tt o t esti n g /bl ood a n a lysis /u ri n a n a lysis [ s ic ] a s d ir e c te d . . . ”

• “R E PO R T T O T H E C SC D [( C om m uni t ySuper vi s i on and C orr ect i ons D e p a rtm e n t)] O F F IC E R A S D IR E C T E D a n d a t lea st o n c e a m o n th ” ;

• P a ya n u m b e r o f f e e s a ss o c iate d w ith h e r su p e rv isio n ;

• “ Pa r t i c i pa t e i n the SPEC I A LI ZED CA SELO A D fo rSU BST A N CE A BU SE Pr ogr am; ” and

• “[S] at i s fac t or i l y par t i ci pat e i n a s cr eeni ng/ as s es s m ent for s ubs t ance abus e and s ubm i tt o any couns el i ng, ur i nanal y s i s [s i c] , and/ oranydi ver s i onarypr ogr am a s d e t e r mi n e [ d ] wi t h i n th e CSCD’ s TREA TM ENT A LTERNA TI VE TO I N C A R C E R A T I O N PR O G R A M ( T A I P)
. ” T he St at e fi l ed i t s fi r s tm ot i on t o r evoke L o v il l’ s supe r vi s i on i n Sept ember2005.L O V I L L —3

L o v i l l ent er ed pl eas of true t o s ever al al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the mot i on, i ncl udi ng the al l egat i on t hats he fa i l ed t o compl yw i t h C SC D ’ s T A I P be caus e of non- att endanc e. T he tr i al j udge di d notr evoke Lovi l l ’ s s upervi s i on buts anct i oned herand a m en d ed the t erm s and condi t i ons o f hers upervi s i on. T he j udge s peci fi cal l yor der ed Lovi l l t o s erve a t erm of confi nementi n t he countySubst ance A bus e Tre atm entFaci l i t y( SA T F ). T h e te r m s and condi t i ons of Lovi l l ’ s s upervi s i on w er e amended t o i ncl ude s peci al condi t i ons as s ociated
w ith th e S A T F te rm o f

c o n f in e m e n t. O n J ul y17, 2007, t he St at e fi l ed a s econd mot i on t o r evoke Lovi l l ’ s s upervi s i on. T he St at e al l eged thatL ovi l l fai led to compl yw i t h t he t erm s and condi t i ons of hers upervi s i on b y: ( 1 ) u s i n g a m p h e t a m i n e ; ( 2 ) f a i l i n g t o r e p o r t t o h e r C S C D o f f i c e ri n t h e m o n t h s o f

M a y, J une, and J ul y2007; ( 3) fai l i ng t o at t end the S A T F af t er car e pr ogr am as di r ect ed; and ( 4) fai l i ng t o payfi nes , resti tuti o n , cos t s , and fe es . A tt he r evoca t i on hear i ng, L ovi l l ent er ed p lea s o f tru e to a ll fo u r a lleg a tio n s. T h e ju d g e a c c e p ted th e p lea s a n d a llo w e d th e p a rties to p re s e n t e v id e n c e . T he St at e ca l l ed Sandr a G ar za, L ovi l l ’ s comm uni t y - s upervi s i on offi cer . W hen as ked
a b o u t th e P ro b a tio n D e p a rtm e n t’s re c o m m e n d a tio n , G a rz a sta ted , “T h e re c o m m e n d a tio n is th at sh e b e sa n cti o n ed to the S u b stan ce A b u se F elon yP u n ishm en t Fa cil ity[(SA FPF ) ] , s peci al
ne e d s u n i t . ” Gar z a c i t e d Lo v i l l ’ s u s e o f d ru g s a s a r e a s o n a n d s t a t e d t h a t Lo v i l l s h o ul d be pl ace d i n a s peci al needs uni t beca us e of he rpr egnanc y . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, G ar za s t at ed that L o v il l’ s u se o f d rug s an d p reg n an cy“d rov e this v iolatio n re p o rt ” a n d that L o v il l’ sL O V I L L —4

p re g n a n c y w a s a “ h ig h c o n c e rn o f o u rs.” W h e n a sk e d w h e th e r th e re c o m m e n d a tio n w o u ld be the s ame i f L ovi l l w er e not pr egnant , G ar za gave no defi ni t i ve ans w er ; buts he s t at ed that t he D epart m entdoes “w or k” w it h so m e peopl e w ho have t es t ed pos i t i ve fordrugs . A nd
w hen as ked about al t ernat i ve progr ams, G ar za m ai nt ai ned thatL ovi l l w oul d benef i tm or e at
a S A F P F s o s h e c o u ld g e t tr e a tm e n t. L ovi l l ’ s defe ns e att or ney cal l ed L ovi l l t o t es t i fy
. She m ai nt ai ned thats he w oul d l i ke t o cont i nue com m uni t y s upervi s i on and be pl ace d i n “C A SA , ” an outpat i entdrug- t r eatm ent fac i l i t y , so t hats he w oul d be abl e “t o keep he rbaby ” w i t h her
. W hen as ked aboutan al t ernat i ve, L ovi l l s t at ed thats he w oul d “t ake the y ears t at e j ai l
. ” I n s um m at i on, L ovi l l ’ s at t or neyas ked the j udge t o r ej ectG ar za’ s r ecomm endat i on: Y ourH onor , on behal f of M s . L ovi l l , I w oul d as k t he C ourtt o cont i nue heron pr obat i on. I ti s obvi ous pr obat i on w oul d have w or ked w i t h her , butfor th e f a c t th a t sh e is p re g n a n t an d th e y d e c id e to re v o k e h e r an d se n d h e r o f f to S A F P [ F ] w ith o u t ev e n g iv in g M s. L o v ill a n o p p o rtu n ityto m a yb e w o rk w ith p r o b a t i o n e v e n th o u g h s h e i s p r e g n a n t . S h e i s wi l l i n g t o g o t o CAS A o rs o me ot hert r eatm entfac i l i t yt hati s l ocal ; s o s he can ha ve herbabyand nott o have t o go t o pr i s on, Y our H onor . She had l i ke a y earl eftors o on herpr obat i on, s o s he w oul d l i ke t o t r yt o and fi ni s h outherpr obat i on and putt hi s cas e behi nd her
. She und erst ands t hatt hatw as poorj udgm enti n hercas e w i t h t es t i ng p o s itiv e . . . . In th e a ltern a tiv e , if th e C o u rt se e s f it to re v o k e h e r, sh e w o u ld lik e to d o o n e y e a r a n d n o t h a v e to g o to S A F P [ F ] a t a ll. I n r es pons e, poi nt i ng t o L ovi l l ’ s drug us e w h i l e pr egnant , the St at e as ked the tr i al ju d g e to f

o llo w G a rz a ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n . T he j udge found thatL ovi l l vi ol at ed the t erm s and condi t i ons of hers upervi s i on. B ut i ns t ead of

r evoki ng hers upervi s i on, t he j udge ext ended he rt erm of s upervi s i on and or der edL O V I L L —5

L o v ill , 287 S. W
. 3d at69. 2 I d. at74- 77. 3 her t o a S A F P F for three t o tw el ve m on t hs. L ovi l l fi l ed a mot i on fora new tr i al al l egi ng t hats he w as s ubj ec te d t o s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on, beca us e of he rpr egnanc y , i n vi ol at i on of the Equa l P rotect i on C l aus es t o t he U nit ed S t at es and Texas C ons t i tut i ons , the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, t he Texas C ons t i tu ti o n ’s d u e cour s e of l aw pr ovi s i on, and the Texas E qual R i ght s A m endment
. A ft erhol di ng a hear i ng, t he t r i al j udge deni ed the mot i on. L ovi l l fi l ed a mot i on t o amend t he condi t i ons of herpr obat i on, w hi ch the t r i al j udge deni ed. L ovi l l t hen
so u g h t h a b e a s c o r p u s r e lie f u n d e r A rticle 1 1 .0 7 2 , arg u in g th a t sh e h a d b e e n se lec tiv e ly p ro se c u ted b e c a u se o f

h e r g e n d e r. T h e trial ju d g e d e n ied re lief , fin d in g th a t th e S tate d id
n o t m o v e to re v o k e L o v ill’ s s u p e rv is io n b e c a u s e o f h e r p re g n a n c y . C o u r t o f A p p e a ls L ovi l l appea l ed the t r i al j udge’ s deni al of her11. 072 appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as
c o rp u s to th e T h irtee n th C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls re

jec ted th re e se p a ra te 2
ar gum ent s m ade by t he S t at e t hat L ovi l l for fei t ed her r i ght t o m ount a s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on compl ai nton appea l
. W e w i l l r evi ew onl yone of the courtof appea l s ’ s for fei tur e hol di ngs 3 beca us e the otherfor fei tur e conc l us i ons and the court ’ s cons idera t i on of the mer i t s of L o v il l’ s claim are n o t nec essa ryto o u r disp o sit ion
. R elev an t t o o u r disp o sit ion , the c o u rt rej ect ed the Stat e’s asse rt i on tha tLovi l l fo r fe i t ed h er s el ect i ve p rosecut i on com plai nt becauseL O V I L L —6

I d. a t 7 6 -7 7
. 4 I d. at76. 5 Id
. 6 Id
. 7 I d. 8 Id
. 9 Id
. ( ci t i ng Sa tter w h ite v . S ta te , 7 2 6 S .W .2 d 8 1 , 8 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). 10 L ovi l l fai l ed t o obj ect on t hi s bas i s at t he r evoca t i on hear i ng. T he cour t of appea l s hel d t hat 4 L o v il l’ s stat em en ts a t the h ea ri n g p rese rve d h er claim fo r rev iew
. A t th e h ea ri n g , L o v il l’ s 5 at t or neyi nform ed the tr i al j udge that t he S t at e m oved t o r evoke her s upervi s i on beca us e of herpr egnanc y . A ccor di ng t o t he court , the tr ia l j udge and the part i es under s t ood t he 6
s u b s t a n c e o f L o v i l l ’ s c o mp l a i n t . T h e S t a t e r e s p o n d e d t o t h e a r g u me n t , a n d t h e r e c o r d s h o ws 7 t hatt he tr i al j udge under s t ood L ovi l l ’ s obj ect i on w h en the j udge s t at ed, “W el l , I thi nk t he f a c t th a t she t est ed posi t i ve i s t he r eason w e are al l here, ri gh t , no t for t he fact t hat sh e is pr egnant . ” T he cour t al s o det erm i ned t hat a s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on compl ai ntm ay“be r ai s ed

8 atvar i ous t i m es dur i ng a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. ” C i t i ng ourdeci s i on i n Sat t er w hi t e v . S ta te , 9 t he courtobs erved thatw e r evi ew ed Sat t erw hi t e’ s s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on cl ai m t hat had bee n
ra ise d in a m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial. 10 St at e’ s P et i t i on f

or D i s cre t i onary R evi ew W e gr ant ed s even gr ounds fr om the St at e’ s Pet i t i on forD i s cr et i onaryR evi ew . T he
s ol e gr ound forr evi ew t hat w e addr es s i s w hether t he cour t of appe al s err ed i n concl udi ngL O V I L L —7

T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 ; s ee al s o T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art . 11. 072, § 8; 11 T EX . R. A PP . P
. 1
. 1 (“T h ese rules g o v ern p roc ed u re in a p p ell ate c o u rt s an d b ef o re a p p e llate ju d g e s a n d p o st-tria l p ro c e d u re in trial c o u rts in c rim in a l ca se s.” ); T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 1 .1 (“ F ili n g th e R e c o rd ; S u b m iss io n ” ); T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 1 .2 (“ H e a rin g ” ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 1 .3 (“ O rd e rs o n A p p e a l” ). T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 3 .1 (a ). 12 P e n a v . S ta te , 285 S. W
. 3d 459, 464 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2009) ( quot i ng Lanks t on 13 v . S ta te , 8 2 7 S
. W
. 2 d 9 0 7 , 9 0 9 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 )).

I d. 14 th a t L o v ill ’s s e lec ti v e p ro se c u tio n c o m p lain t w a s p re se rv e d b ya sp e c if ic a n d tim e ly compl ai n t at tr ial
. B eca us e ourr es ol ut i on of thi s cas e i s r es pons i ve t o onl yone of the groun ds for revi ew t hat w e grant ed and i t i s no tnecessaryfor us t o ad dress t he o t her groun ds,
w e d is m is s th e re m a in in g g ro u n d s f o r r e v ie w . A n a ly sis T ex as R u le of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 33. 1, w hi ch es t abl i s hes the r equi r ement s for pr es ervi ng a compl ai ntforappel l at e r evi ew , governs t hi s cas e. T o pr es erve a com pl ai ntfor 11 appel l at e r evi ew , t he r ecor d m us ts how t hat a s peci fi c and t i m el y compl ai nt w as m ade t o the trial ju d g e a n d th a t th e trial ju d g e ru led o n th e c o m p lain t. T h e sp e c if icityre q u ire m e n t is 12
m eti f the compl ai ntm ade a tt r i al w as cl earenough t o t he t r i al j udge s o as t o perm i tthe tr i al j ud ge t o t ake corr ect i ve act i on w hen t he co m plai nt w as m ade. T he co m plai ning part ym ust 13 h a v e in f o rm e d th e trial ju d g e w h a t w a s w a n ted a n d w h yth e p a rtyw a s e n tit led to it. A 14 compl ai ntw i l l notbe pr es erved i f the l egal bas i s o f the compl ai ntr ai s ed on appe al var i esL O V I L L —8

H e id e lb e rgv . S ta te , 144 S. W
. 3d 535, 537 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng 15 E u zie re v . S ta te , 6 4 8 S .W .2 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 3 -0 4 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ))
. A g u ila r v . S ta te , 2 6 S
. W
. 3 d 9 0 1 , 9 0 6 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) ( W ilso n v . S ta te , 7 16 S .W .3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); H o lli n s v . S ta te , 805 S. W
. 2d 475, 477 ( T ex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ))
.

G a w lick v . S ta te , 6 0 8 S .W .2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 3 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed 17 Stat es v. H

uber , 404 F. 3d 1047, 1054 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng thatappel l ant ’ s s el ect i ve p ro se c u tio n c laim w a s f o rf e ited b yh is f

a ilu re to lo d g e a tim e lyp re trial o b jec tio n ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r

yant , 5 F
. 3 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 6 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ) (sam e). G aw l i ck , 6 0 8 S .W .2 d a t 6 7 3 ; se e a lso Ma rin v . S ta te , 851 S. W
. 2d 275, 279 18 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) (r igh ts be lon g ing to a lit igan t are su b ject t o fo rfe itu re). fro m t he compl ai ntm ade a tt r i al
. A par t y ’ s compl ai nti s r egar ded as t i m el yw hen i tw as 15

“ m a d e a s s o o n a s th e g ro u n d f o r c o m p la in t is a p p a re n t o r s h o u ld b e a p p a re n t.” 16 C ons i s t entw i t h ou r p res ervat i on j ur i s prudence , i n G a w lick v . S ta te , w e hel d t hat G aw l i ck d i d n ot preserve hi s sel ect i ve prosecut i on com plai nt for app el l at e revi ew becau se h e f a iled to o b

jec t o n th is b a sis a t trial. T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t G a w lick f o rf e ited h is 17
se lec tiv e p ro se c u tio n c o m p lain t. 18 H ere , w e m u st d eterm ine w h ethe r the co u rt o f ap p ea ls erred in h o lding that L o v il l’ s compl ai nt w as s peci fi c and t i m el y as r equi r ed by R ul e 33. 1. B as ed on the part i cul arfac t s and ci r cumst ance s her e, w e conc l ude t hat t he cour t err ed. Fi r s t , L ovi l l ’ s s t at ement s dur i ng t he
r evoca t i on hear i n g w ere n o t spe ci fi c enough t o appr i s e the tr i al j udge thats he w as compl ai ni ng aboutgender
- bas ed s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on i n vi ol at i on of hercons t i tut i onal
r i ght s . L ovi l l di d cont end thatbut for her pr egnanc y , the Pr obat i on D epart m entw oul d not have r epor t ed herfai l ur e t o compl y w i t h t he t erm s and condi t i ons of hers upervi s i on t o t heL O V I L L —9

See U ni t ed Stat es v. A r m s tr ong , 517 U
. S. 456, 463 ( 1996) ( “A 19 s el ect i ve- pr os ecut i on cl ai m i s nota def ens e on the mer i t s t o t he cr i m i nal char ge i t s el f, but an i ndepende ntas s er t i on t hatt he pr os ecut orhas br oughtthe cha r ge forr eas ons forbi dden b ythe C o n sti tuti o n . ”).

R e n o v . A me r i c a n -A r a b A n t i
- Dis c r i mi n a t i o n Co mm . , 525 U
. S. 471, 490 ( 1999) 20 ( “Even i n t he cr i m i nal
- l aw fi el d, a s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on cl ai m i s a ra ra a v is . ”).

C f. P e n a v . S ta te , 2 8 5 S .W .3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ); R e y n a v . S ta te , 21 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 9 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); He id e lb e rgv . S ta te , 144 S. W
. 3d 535, 543 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). D ist r i ctA t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce. C ont i nui ng, s he as s ert ed thatthe D i s t r i ctA t t orneyw oul d not h a v e m o v e d to re v o k e h e r su p e rv isio n if sh e h a d n o t b e e n p re g n a n t. H o w e v e r, at n o tim e d id L ovi l l chal l enge the l egal i t y of t he ent i r e r evoca t i on pr ocee di ng on the bas i s of gende r - bas ed
se lec tiv e p ro se c u tio n o r d isc rim in a tio n . W h ile n o t alw a y s re q u ire d , w h e n a leg a l cla im is 19
r ar el yur ged, l i ke thi s one, t he com pl ai ni ng par t ys houl d i nvoke the contr ol l i ng fede r al and 20 sta te c o n stitu tio n a l p r o v is io n s o r u se k e yleg a l p h ra se s to e n su re th a t th e trial ju d g e is i nform ed of the part i cul arcompl ai nt . She coul d have us ed the w or ds s el ect i ve pr os ecut i on 21
orequal pr ot ect i on undert he l aw orci t ed t he E qual Pr ot ect i on C l aus e. B utL ovi l l di d none of thi s . H ercompl ai nt s w entonl yt ow ar ds m i t i gat i ng t he cons equenc es t hat t he t r i al j udge
w as consid er i ng fol l ow i ng herpl eas of true. She us ed the St at e’ s cons i der at i on of her pr egnanc yas w ayt o chal leng e the P r obat i on D epart m ent ’ s r ecomm endat i on t hats he be pl ace d i n a SA FPF
. She as ked t o be pl ace d i n an out - pat i entdrug- abus e pr ogr am or t o s erve a y eari n s t at e j ai l
. H erar gum ent s fora l es s er form of puni s hm ent t han thatr ecomm ended b yt h e St a t e d i d n o ta d e q u a t e l yi n f o r m t h e tr i a l j u d g e th a tth e r e v o c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , asL O V I L L

— 10

S e e R e se n d ez v . S ta te , N o. PD
- 0917- 08, 2009 T ex. C r i m . A pp. L E X I S 1439, at 22 *13 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. O ct . 21, 2009) ( “O nl yw hen ther e ar e cl earcont extual cl ues i ndi cat i ng t hatt he part yw as , i n fac t , m aki ng a part i cul arar gum entw i l l thatar gum entbe p rese rve d
. ”). Y i ck W o v. H opki ns , 118 U
. S. 356, 374 ( 1886) ( r ever s i ng bas ed on s el ect i ve 23 p rose cu ti o n an d rem an d ing to low er c o u rtw ith “d ir ec ti o n s to d isch arg e the p eti ti o n ers f ro m c u s to d ya n d im p ri s o n m e n t.” ); R ic h a rd H . M c A d a m s , P r os ecut i on: D is cove r i ng the P i t f al l s of A r m s tr ong , 73 C HI . -K ENT L. R EV . 605, 653 n. 144 ( 1998) ( “The convent i onal r emedyfors uch cl ai m s i s a di s m i s s al of the cr i m i nal char ge . . . . ” and opi ni ng that“w hen a d e f e n d a n t sh o w s th a t th e sta te w o u ld n o t h a v e p ro se c u ted h im b u t f o r th e ill e g iti m a te fac t or s of r ace , he i s ent i t l ed t o be fr ee f r om pr os ecut i on, j us tas the s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i n i t i a t e d , w e r e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a n d t h e r e f o r e v i o l a t e d h e rc o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h ts . A d d i t i o n a l l y, 22

w e d isa g re e w ith th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e trial ju d g e u n d e rsto o d th a t L o v ill
w as ad v an cing a se lecti v e p rose cu ti o n co m p lai n t. T ak en in co n text, the tri al j u d g e’s
r es pons e— “I t hi nk t he fa ct t hat s he t es t ed pos i t i ve i s t he r eas on w e ar e al l her e, notfort he f a c t th a t sh e is p re g n a n t”— in d ica ted o n ly h is u n d e rsta n d in g th a t L o v ill w a n ted th e c a se to b e re so lved in h er f

av o r. T h e j u d g e’s st atem en t d o es no t ind icate th at h e un d erstoo d L o v il l’ s
ar gum ent s t o be a c hal l enge ba s ed on di s cr i m i nat orys el ect i ve pr o sec u ti o n . O ur det erm i nat i on t hatL ovi l l ’ s compl a i n tl a c k e dth e r e q ui s i t e s peci fi ci t yunderthe ci r cumst ance s her e i s pl ai nl ys how n w hen hert r i al compl ai nt s ar e compar ed t o hers ubs equent , fi nel ytuned
c o n ten tio n s th a t sh e p re se n ted in h e r m o tio n f o r n e w trial a n d 1 1 .0 7 2 a p p lica tio n f o r a w rit of habe as corpus . I n herm ot i on and appl i cat i on, she cha l l enged the i ni t i at i on of the p roceedi ngs on cons t i tut i onal gr ounds , ar gui ng thats he w as s ubj ect ed t o s el ect i ve p ro se c u tio n , an d c o n ten d e d th a t a d ism iss a l o f th e p ro se c u tio n is th e o n lya p p ro p ria te
r e m e d y. 23L O V I L L

— 11

per s ons of otherr ace s w er e l egi t i m at el yfr ee f r om pr os ecut i on. ”) ( ci t i ng D uncan v. P er ez , 4 4 5 F .2 d 5 5 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 1 ) (e n jo in in g re trial); U

n itedS ta tes v . S tee le , 461 F. 2d 1148, 1 1 5 2 (9 th C ir. 1 9 7 2 ); U nited S tates v. C row thers , 4 5 6 F
. 2 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 8 0 -81 (4th C ir
. 1 9 7 2 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , 3 1 1 F . S u p p . 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 5 -6 6 (D . M o n t. 1 9 6 9 ))
. B uts ee A r m s tr ong , 517 U
. S. at461 n. 2 ( “W e have neverdet erm i ned w hetherdi s m i s s al of the in d ictm e n t, or so m e o th e r sa n c tio n , is th e p ro p e r re m e d yif a c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t a d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n th e v ic tim o f p ro s e c u tio n o n th e b a s is o f h is ra c e .” ). L o v ill , 287 S. W
. 3d at76. 24 N ext , w e conc l ude t hat t he cour t of appeal s err ed i n hol di ng thatL ovi l l ’ s compl ai nt
w as t i m el y . T he fi r s tt i m e thats he s peci fi cal ly infor m ed the tr i al j udge thats he w as chal l engi ng t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof the r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs bas ed on s elec t i ve pr os ecut i on, as r equi r ed byR ul e 33. 1, w as i n her m ot i on for a new t r i al
. B ut t hi s w as nott he fi r s tt i m e thatt he bas i s of hercompl ai ntw as appar ent . T he fa ctual bas i s under l y i ng herl egal compl ai ntbeca m e appa r ent w hen G ar za t es t i fi ed at t he r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs . L ovi l l t ook th e f a c tu a l b a s is in to c o n s id e ra tio n a t th a t tim e w h e n a r g u i n g f o r le s s e r p u n is h m e n t. H ow ever , as s t at ed above , s he di d notas s erta part i cul arl egal theoryand di d not u se the
re q u isite s p e c if

ici ty. F u rth e r, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e rre d in re ly in g o n o u r d e c isio n in Sa tter w h ite to c o n c lu d e th a t a m o tio n f o r a n e w trial c laim in g se lec tiv e p ro se c u tio n is
su f f icie n t f o r p re se rv a tio n p u rp o se s. W e d id n o t a d d re ss th e p re se rv a tio n re q u ire m e n t in 24 Sa tter w h ite . Si l ence on t he i s s ue d o es n o t mean thatw e i s s ued a rul i ng contr aryt o t he deci s i on t hat w e rendert oday
. I n fac t , gi ven ourpr i ordeci s i on i n G aw l i ck , w e coul d not have made s uch a de t erm i nat i on. A ddi t i onal l y , the s y s t emi c natur e of err orpr es ervat i on w asL O V I L L

— 12

J o n e s v . S ta te , 9 4 2 S .W .2 d 1 , 2 n .1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ); H u g h e s v . S ta te , 25 8 7 8 S .W .2 d 1 4 2 , 1 5 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); Fu llerv . S ta te , 8 2 9 S .W .2 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 9 n .4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); Ma rin , 8 5 1 S .W .2 d a t 2 7 8
.

C f. E x p a rte Me d e lli n , 2 2 3 S
. W
. 3 d 3 1 5 , 3 2 2 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); E x p a rte 26 D ut chove r , 7 7 9 S
. W
. 2 d 7 6 , 7 7 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ). notnece s s ar i l yi ngr ai ned i n ourj ur i s prudence unt i l t he ea r l y1990’ s , y ear s aft erw e i s s ued 25 Sa tter w h ite . C oncl usi on W e conc l ude thatt he courtof appe al s err ed i n hol di ng thatL ovi l l ’ s s el ect i ve p rose cu ti o n co m p lai n t w as p rese rve d fo r ap p ell ate rev iew
. A s a re su lt , w e re v erse the c o u rt of appea l s ’ s j udgm ent and aff i r m t he t r i al j udge’ s deci s i on t o deny L o v il l’ s 1 1
. 072 appl i cat i on, al t hough fora di ffe r entr eas on than thats t at ed bythe tr i al j udge. 26

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : D ece m ber16, 2009 PU BL I SH