## IN THE COUR T OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF TEX AS
N os . P D - 1661- 08 & P D - 1662 - 08

ED U A R D O G U ER R ER O , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON THE ST ATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FOURTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

BEX AR CO UNTY

H OL C OM B , J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on, i n w hi c h M E YE RS and J OHNS ON , JJ . , j oi ne d.
A def endant suff

ers multiple punishments in viol ation of t he Double J eopar dy Clause when he is convicte d of, and punished for, more offe nses than the L eg islature intended. Erv in v . S tate , 991 S.W .2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). The State prose cuted Edua rdo Gue rr er o fo r, and a

Be x ar County

jury found him g uilty

of, bo th m anu fa c tur ing and po sse ssi ng wi th int e nt t o d e liv e r a sin g le qu anti ty

of me tha mph e tamin e in a sing le place at a sing le point in tim e. Texas H ealth and Safety Code § 481.112(a) , the statute underGUERRERO - 2

wh i ch M r. Guerre ro wa s convicted, pr ovides that a pe rson commits an offe nse if the pe rson knowing ly

“manuf

actur es,” “ possesses wi t h i ntent to deliver,” or “de livers” a quantity of methamphetam i n e. S ection 481.002, in turn, def ines the terms “ manufa cture ,” “posse ssion,” and

“ de liv e r. ” Gi ve n a ll o f t

his , “t h er e a re at l ea s tfi v e w a y s t o c o m m i tan o ff en s e u n d er

S ec t i o n4 8 1
. 1 1 2 : t h ro u gh knowing 1) manufa cture ; 2) an offe r to se ll; or 3) possession with intent to deliver; or t hroug h knowing delivery by 4) actual transfe r; or 5) constructive tr ansfe r. All of the se me tho ds are po int s a lon g a c on tin uum in the lin e of

dr ugdis tr ibutio n, fr om i ts manufa cture until it s phy sical deliver y to the ultimate consumer. Thus, no matter wher e the a ctor a

nd his [quantit y of controlled substance] is appre hended a long that continuum, the actor may be prosecuted under Section 481.112.” Lop e z v . S tate , 108 S.W .3d 293, 297 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (footnote omitted). Fur thermore ,

“ [t]he pe na lty

is the same no matte r whe re a lon g the c on tin uum th e de fe nd ant i s s t o p p ed
. Bu tt h e p en al t y i n cr ea s es d ep en d i n g u

p o nt h e q u an t i t y

o f t h e dru gs manufa cture d, delivere d, or possessed with the i ntent to deliver. So the leg islature’s focus se ems to be upon the amount of the drug s involved, not upon a ny distinction be tw e e n w he the r t

he y we re manu fa c tur e d, de liv e re d, or po sse sse d w iththe int e nt t o deliver. This would indicate that the leg islative inte nt was to treat the proscr ibed behavior as alternative means of committing a single offe nse with ever -incre asing penalties–re g ardle ss o f t h e specific ac t involved–for eve r-g reater amounts of the sp e c if ie d dr ug . I n sum, the fo c us of

se c tio n 4 81 .1 12 ind ic a te s a le g isl a tiv e int e nt t o punish a single ac t wi t h a s ingle punishment. . . . Thus, [ the] double jeopardy [clause] would prohibit m ultiple punishm ents for a s i n gl e act of manufa cturingor po sse ssi ng wi th int e nt t o d e liv e r [a sin g le qu anti ty

of ] me tha mph e tamin e a t a

sin g le p oint in ti me.” Gu e rre ro v . S tate , _ _ _ S. W. 3 d

_ _ _ , _ _ _ ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p .

_

_ _) (Cochra n, J ., concur

ring ), slip op. at 6-7. Ac c or din g ly , my

vie w i s tha t th e L e g isl a tur e int e nd e d th a t th e manu fa c tur e of a sin g le quantity of methamphe tamine and the simultaneous possession o f th a t m e th amphetamine w ith intent to deliver it to someone else would constitute but one violation of § 481.112(a), for whic h there could be but one c onviction an d o n e p u n i s h m ent. Given the evidence in this case and g iven the appar ent leg islative intent unde rlying § 481.112(a) , the Double J eopar dy Clause prohibits inflictingGUERRERO - 3

more than one conviction and punishment on Mr. Guerrer o. I would, there fore , aff irm the judg ment of the c ourt of a pp e a ls. B e c a

us e the ma

jor ity do e s n ot d o s o, Ire sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.

FI L ED DECEMB ER 9, 2009 PUB L I SH