COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v. WI L L I AM KI RKPATRI CK, J R., Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00253- CR

Appea l from the Criminal District Court Number One of El Paso County , Texas (TC#20080D04797)

O P I N I O N The State of Texas, Appellant, ap p ea l s the trial court’s g rant of Appellee ’s motion for direc ted ver dict. We reve rse a nd rema nd.
BACK GR OUND Appellee was indicted for possession with intent to deliver coca ine (Count I ) and possession of m arijuana (C o unt I I ). Appellee proce eded to trial with his co-de fenda nt, Steven Brown. After the State rested its case , the trial court overr uled Appellee ’s motion for a direc ted verdic t. Appellee rested his case but never reur g ed his motion for direc ted verdic t. There afte r, the case was submitt ed to the jury

. After commencing its delibera tions, the jury issued a note informing the trial court that it had

rea ched verdic ts as to Br own, but was unable t o unanimously rea ch verdic ts reg arding Appellee

. After delibera ting further , the jury advised the trial court that it was d ea d locked on the counts rela ting to Appel l ee. Although the trial court delivere d an Allen char g e instructing the jury to continue its delibera tions, the jury failed to rea ch a unanimous verdic t on either count perta ining to Appellee

. Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492, 501, 17 S.Ct

. 154, 157, 41 L .Ed. 528 (1896). Thetrial cou rt t h er ea ft er g rante d Appellee ’s motion for mistrial and rec eived the jury ’s verdic t as to

Br own. After discharg ing the jury , the trial court and parties proce eded to another courtroom. There , the trial court sua sponte stated, “[T] he court’s been thinking about [Appellee’s case ] and the Court is g oing to rec onsider it’s ruling on the motion for a direc ted verdic t by the defe nse. And it’s g oing to go a head a nd g rant that at t his time.” The trial c ourt then ente red a written “O rder

for Dir ecte d
Ver dict” which sta ted:

After the conclusion of the State’s Case in Chief the Def endant, [Appellee], made [a] Motion for Direc ted Ver dict. The Court FOU ND that the State had failed to prove the e ssential elements of the offe nses alleg ed ag ainst [Appellee]. Therefo re, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a direc ted verdic t is GRANTED in favor of [Appellee] and that [Appellee] be found not-g uilty of the off enses c harg ed her ein. 1
DISCUSSIO N
Issue
I n a single issue, the State con t en d s t h e t rial court err ed when it sua sponte g rante d Appellee ’s motion for direc ted verdic t afte r it ha d both g rante d Appellee ’s motion for mistrial a nd had discharg ed the jury

. Be cause the jury had been discharg ed, the State arg ues that the trial court

was without authority to withdraw its previous g rant of mistrial as reque sted by Appellee

. The State
arg ues that the trial c ourt’s mistrial decla ration re verte d Appellee ’s case t o its pretria l posture and
that its subsequent g rant of the direc ted verdic t had the eff ect of dismiss ing the State’s prosec ution of Appellee ’s case without the State’s consent. Be cause t h e mistrial was g rante d at Appellee ’s
reque st, the Stat e as s er ts Appellee ’s double-jeopa rdy protec tions wer e not implicated and, for all these rea sons, the State contends the trial court’s order for a direc ted verdic t was a nullity

. We

A j u d g m e n t i s t h e w r i t t e n d e c l a r a t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s i g n e d b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e a n d e n t e r e d o f r e c o r d s h o w i n g 1 t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n o r a c q u i t t a l

. T E X
. C O D E C R IM
. P R O C
. A N N
. a r t

. 4 2

. 0 1 , § 1 ( W e s t 2 0 0 6 )

.sustain the State’s issue. Jurisdiction and State’s Ability to Appeal Order for Directed V erdict Appellee contends the State failed to prese rve err or by objecting to the trial court’s entry of

a direc ted verdic t a

nd arg ues that this Court is w ithout jurisdiction to c onsider the State’s appea l.
Howeve r, the State is entitled to appea l from any trial court order , short of an acquittal, conce rning

an indictment or information whene ver the order eff ectively terminates the prosec ution in favor of the defe ndant, and it may do so reg ardle ss of how the trial court char acte rizes its order

. T E X
. C O D E 2
C R I M
. P R O C
. AN N . art. 44.01(West 2006); State v. More no , 807 S.W .2d 327, 332 n.6. (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). I n ad d i t i o n , the C ourt of C riminal Appea ls has held that the C ourts of Appeals have jurisdiction to address the mer its of an appe al from suc h order

. Moreno , 807 S.W .2d at 332. Ty pically , we indulge a presumption of reg ularity in su pport of a judgme nt and find that a

re ci tation of acquittal within a judgme nt is sufficie nt to establish an acquittal in fac t. E x p a r t e George , 913 S.W .2d 523, 526 (Tex

. C ri m
. App. 1995); Breazeale v. State , 683 S.W .2d 446, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’ g ) (re citals within a judgme nt cre ate a presumption of reg ularity and truthfulness, absent an aff irmative showing to the contra ry ). Appellant bear s the b u rd en of

overc oming this presumption. Ex parte W ilson , 716 S.W .2d 953, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
Her e, the r ecor d does not support the re citals in the trial cour t’s order for dire cted verdic t. Whil e the trial court’s order g ives the appea ranc e that it immediately g rante d a direc ted verdic t upon Appellee ’s request, this is not an accur ate re fl ec t i o n of t he facts. See State v. Meye r , 953 S.W .2d 822, 824 (Tex. App.

– C o rp u s Christi 1997, no pet.) (trial court’s judgme nt g ranting defe ndant’s motion for direc ted verdic t was not enter ed immediately as rec ited in the judgme nt but was enter ed

B e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t t h e S t a t e o f T e x a s t i m e l y f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , t h e r e i s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n a l 2 b a r u p o n t h i s b a s i s
. T E X
. C O D E C R IM
. P R O C
. A N N
. a r t

. 4 4

. 0 1 ( d ) ( W e s t 2 0 0 6 )

.six months after the trial court orig inally denied the motion, g rante d a mistrial, a nd discharg ed the jury ; the ref

ore, the judgme nt gr anting direc ted verdic t did not c ontain an acc urate statement of the
proce dural fac ts). Nor is the trial court’s rec ital that it had found that the State had f ailed to prove the essential elements of the char g ed offe nses supported by the rec ord. I n stead, the rec ord demonstrates that the trial court immediately overr uled Appellee ’s motion for d i re ct ed verdic t witho u t m ak i n g any finding s. Appellee never reur g ed his direc ted-ve rdict motion but, instead, moved for a

mistrial. The trial court then g rante d Appellee ’s m otion for mis trial and discha rg ed the jury

. For thes e re asons, we conclude that the trial court’s order for direc ted verdic t is not an

acc urate statement of the proce dural fac ts in this case
. See Mey er , 953 S.W .2d at 824. We there fore do not indulg e a presumption of reg ularity in suppor t of the direc ted verdic t judg ment and we find
that the rec itation of acquittal within the trial court’s judgme nt is insufficient to establish an acquittal in fac t. See E

x parte Ge orge , 913 S.W .2d at 526. The trial court’s direc ted-ve rdict order attempt ed t o discharg e Appellee from further
prosec ution by : (1) finding that the State failed to prove the essential elements of the char ged offe nses; and (2) finding Appellee “not g uilty ” o f t hose offe nses. Thus, the order was one

conce rning the indictment and it eff ectively terminated the State’s prosec ution in favor of Appellee

. Howeve r, for rea sons addre ssed here af t er , we find the trial court’s order did not constitute an acquittal of Appellee

. As a result, the State is entitled to appea l the trial court’s “Or der for Direc ted 3

W h e n a n o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e s a n a c q u i t t a l , t h e S t a t e m a y n o t a p p e a l i t , e v e n i f e r r o n e o u s l y e n t e r e d

. S t a t e v
. 3 S t a n l e y , 2 0 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 5 4 , 7 5 9 ( T e x . C r i m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 6 ) ; M o r e n o , 8 0 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t 3 3 2 n
. 6

. A c c o r d i n g t o 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 , “ a d e f e n d a n t i s a c q u i t t e d o n l y w h e n ‘ t h e r u l i n g o f t h e j u d g e , w h a t e v e r i t s l a b e l , a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t s a r e s o l u t i o n [ i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s f

a v o r ] , c o r r e c t o r n o t , o f s o m e o r a l l o f t h e f a c t u a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d

. ’ ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. S c o t t , 4 3 7 U

. S

. 8 2 , 9 7 , 9 8 S

. C t

. 2 1 8 7 , 5 7 L

. E d

. 2 d 6 5 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. M a r t i n L i n e n S u

p p l y C o
. , 4 3 0 U

. S

. 5 6 4 , 5 7 1 , 9 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 4 9 , 5 1 L

. E d

. 2 d 6 4 2 ( 1 9 7 7 )

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

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

. ” E x p a r t e G e o r g e , 9 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d a t 5 2 7

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

e n d a n t i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e c o m m i t t e d i fVer dict,” and we possess jurisdiction to addre ss the State’s appea l of that order

. T E X
. C O D E C R I M
.

P R O C
. AN N
. art. 44.01(West 2006); Moreno , 807 S.W .2d at 332 n.6; see State v. Eave s , 800 S.W .2d 220, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial co u rt’s ruling terminated criminal action and eff ectively discharg ed defe ndant from further prosec ution, there by rende ring the court’s order appea lable by the State). Discharge of Jury Before Dire cted Ve rdict
I n this case , the trial co u rt ’s d i s charg e of the jury dera iled its attempt to direc t a verdic t. When the trial court discha rg ed the jury , it ha d alre ady g rante d a mistrial a nd had not implicitly or otherwise resc inded its mistrial order

. “The defining fea ture of a mistrial is that the order contemplates further prosec ution.” State v. Moreno , 294 S.W .3d 594, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
An order g ranting a mistrial that is not subsequently withdrawn has the eff ect of nullify ing all
proce eding s to that point. Rodriguez v. State , 852 S.W .2d 516, 520 (T ex
. Crim. App. 1993);
Carrasco v. State , 122 S.W .3d 366, 367-68 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2003, pet. g rante d) (a decla ration of mist ri al rende rs a pending trial a nug atory proce eding ), citing Bullard v. State , 168 Tex. Crim. 627, 629, 331 S.W .2d 222, 223 (1960) (“A ft er a m i s t ri al , the case stands as it did befor e the mistrial.”). Whil e a decla

ration of mistrial rende rs a pending trial nug atory , this does not mean that the
trial court there afte r loses jurisdiction. Rodriguez , 852 S.W .2d at 520. I nstead, a trial court reta ins its authority to withdraw an order of mistrial befor e a jury is discharg ed. Id. (“That an order g ranting

a mistrial that is not subsequently withdrawn does indeed have the eff ect of nullify ing all
proce eding s to that point does not mean the trial court may not resc ind that order , and continue with

i t r e c i t e s t h a t t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s b e e n f

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

y , 2 0 1 S

. W

. 3 d a t 7 6 0

.the trial, so long a s that rema ins a viable option unde r the circ umstances.” ) (empha sis in orig inal);

Montemay or v. State , 55 S.W .3d 78, 88 (Tex. App. – Austin 2001, pet. ref used) (trial court’s g rant of mistrial was im plicitly withdrawn where jury had not been discharg ed and trial court ther eaf ter direc ted jury to continue delibera tions); Mey er , 953 S.W .2d at 825 (the ci rc u m s t an ces of the
proce eding s must be considere d to deter mine whether resc ission of a mistrial order is a viable option but wher e a jury has been discharg ed, withdrawa l of mistrial order is not a viable option). Her e, the pivotal event which barr ed the trial court’s entry of a direc ted verdic t was its discharg e of the jury

. The trial court never withdrew its order of mistrial befor e discharg ing the jury

. As a conseque nce, the trial court’s non-re scinded decla ration of mistrial nullified all proce edings t o that point. Rodriguez , 852 S.W .2d at 520; Carrasco , 122 S.W .3d at 367-68; Mey er , 953 S.W .2d at 825. For these rea sons, we find that: (1) the trial court err ed when it dire cted a verdic t a fter discharg ing the jury ; and (2) the trial court’ s order of direc ted ver dict did not constitut e an a cquittal of Appe llee. Double Je opardy Appellee contends that the State’s appe a l s h o u ld b e d is mi s sed beca use jeopar dy had attache d, thus barr ing his retria l under the Double J eopar dy Clause. U.S. C O N S T
. amend. V, XI V, § 1; T E X
. 4
C O N S T
. art. I , § 10. Howeve r, befor e double-jeopa rdy protec tions are implicated, two conditions

m u s t b e met. Martin Linen Supply Co. , 430 U.S. at 569; Moreno , 294 S.W .3d at 597. First, t h e

acc used m ust actua lly be placed in jeopar dy

. Martin Linen Supply Co. , 430 U.S. at 569; Moreno , 294 S.W .3d at 597. I n a state or fede ral jury trial, jeopar dy attache s when the jury is empane led and

sworn. Martin Linen Supply Co. , 430 U.S. a t 569; Moreno , 294 S.W .3d at 597. I n a Te x as benc h trial, jeopar dy attache s when the defe ndant pleads to the char g ing instrume n t

. Ortiz v. State , 933

“ [ A ] d e f e n d a n t o n c e a c q u i t t e d m a y n o t b e a g a i n s u b j e c t e d t o t r i a l w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y 4 C l a u s e
. ” U

. S

. v
. S c o t t , 4 3 7 U

. S

. 8 2 , 9 6 , 9 8 S

. C t

. 2 1 8 7 , 2 1 9 6 , 5 7 L

. E d

. 2 d 6 5 ( 1 9 7 8 )

.S.W .2d 102, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Her e, afte r the trial court decla red a mistrial, no jury was
empane led or sworn and Appellee did not there afte r plead to the char g ing instrument. Second, the
State’s appea l must threa ten the defe ndant with impermissible succe ssive prosec utions. Martin
Linen Supply Co. , 430 U.S. at 569. But when a defe ndant is responsible for the second prosec ution, as i n see k i n g a mistrial, the doubl e-je opardy clause is not offe nded. Moreno , 294 S.W .3d at 601, citing U.S. v. Scott , 437 U.S. 82, 96, 98 S.Ct

. 2187, 2196, 57 L .Ed.2d 65 (1978). For the fore g oing

rea sons, and b ec au s e Ap p ellee reque sted the mistrial in this case , there by rende ring Appellee responsible for his second prosec ution, we find his double-jeopa rdy rig hts have not been violated.
Moreno , 294 S.W .3d at 601. The State’ s issue is sustained.
CONCLUSION The trial court’ s order g ranting Appellee ’s motion for direc ted verdic t is reve rsed and the

case is remande d for tria l.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice April 6, 2011
Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)