## 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 2 7 4

- 1 4

B O B B Y J O E P E Y R O N E L

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

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 F I R S T C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

H A R R I S C O U N T Y

H E R V E Y

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. ,

M E Y E R S

, K E A S L E R

, R IC H A R D S O N

, Y E A R Y

, a n d N E W E L L

, J J

. J O H N S O N

, J

. , f i l e d a

d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n

. A L C A L A

, J

. , c o n c u r r e d

.

O P I N I O N

I n t h i s c a s e w e m u s t d e c i d e w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o a p u b l i c t r i a l i s s u b j e c t

t o f o r f e i t u r e

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

a i l e d t o

p r e s e r v e h i s p u b l i c

- t r i a l c o m p l a i n t f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w

, w e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

.

B A C K G R O U N DPey ronel –2

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

y e a r s o f a g e

. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E § 2 2

. 0 2 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B )

. T h e j u r y f i n e d h i m $ 1 0

, 0 0 0 a n d

a s s e s s e d h i s p u n i s h m e n t a t f i f t y y e a r s i n t h e C o r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s D i v i s i o n o f t h e

T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e

. D u r i n g a b r e a k i n t h e p u n i s h m e n t

- p h a s e

p r o c e e d i n g

, a n u n i d e n t i f i e d w o m a n t h a t t h e r e c o r d s h o w s w a s “ p a r t o f t h e d e f e n s e ”

a p p r o a c h e d a j u r o r a n d a s k e d

, “ H o w d o e s i t f e e l t o c o n v i c t a n i n n o c e n t m a n ? ” A t a

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

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t

e x c u s e d a l l p u n i s h m e n t

- p h a s e w i t n e s s e s f r o m t h e c o u r t r o o m o n i t s o w n m o t i o n

, b u t t h e 1

S t a t e a l s o a s k e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e x c l u d e f r o m t h e c o u r t r o o m “ f

e m a l e m e m b e r s o f t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s f

a m i l y

. . . d u r i n g t e s t i m o n y

. I j u s t d o n ’ t w a n t a n y o f t h e j u r o r s a t t h i s p o i n t t o

f e e l i n t i m i d a t e d w h i l e h a v i n g t o m a k e a d e c i s i o n

. ” D e f e n s e c o u n s e l t h e n s t a t e d

,

Y o u r H o n o r

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

[ A p p e l l a n t ] ’ s w i f

e a n d d a u g h t e r t o c r e a t e t h e i m p r e s s i o n i n t h e j u r y ’ s m i n d

t h a t h e h a s a b s o l u t e l y n o s u p p o r t w h a t s o e v e r h e r e

.

T h e S t a t e d e f

e n d e d i t s r e q u e s t b y n o t i n g t h a t i t w o u l d n o r m a l l y “ n e v e r a s k ” f o r e x c l u s i o n

,

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

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

, t h a t t h e c o m m e n t c r o s s e d t h e l i n e

i n t o w h a t t h e S t a t e c o n s i d e r e d i n t i m i d a t i o n o f a j u r o r

, a n d t h a t t h e w o m a n w h o m a d e t h e

c o m m e n t w a s s t i l l u n i d e n t i f i e d

. T h e j u d g e a g r e e d b u t a l s o d e c i d e d t o e x c l u d e e v e r y o n e i n

See T E X

. R. E V I D . 614. The re levant portion of Rule 614 states, “ [a] t a par ty ’s re quest, 1

the cour t must order witnesses e x cluded so that they cannot he ar othe r witnesses’ testimony . Or

the cour t may do so on its own.” Id.Pey ronel –3

t h e g a l l e r y

.

O n a p p e a l

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

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

. T h e 2

S t a t e a r g u e d t h a t a d e f

e n d a n t ’ s p u b l i c

- t r i a l r i g h t i s s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e

, a n d t h a t

A p p e l l a n t ’ s c o m p l a i n t w a s n o t p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d

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

A p p e l l a n t t h a t h e p r e s e r v e d h i s c l a i m

, r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l

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

,

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

. S e e P e y r o n e l v

.

S t a t e

, 4 4 6 S

. W

. 3 d 1 5 1

, 1 6 2 ( T e x

. A p p

. — H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 4

, p e t

. g r a n t e d )

.

W e g r a n t e d t h e 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 o n a s i n g l e g r o u n d : “ T h e

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

- t r i a l i s s u e w a s p r e s e r v e d f o r r e v i e w w h e n

t h e a p p e l l a n t [ d i d ] n o t a s k t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o d o a n y t h i n g a n d d i d n o t a l e r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o

t h e s p e c i f

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

### .” 3

D IS C U S S IO N

W e h a v e n e v e r d i r e c t l y a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r a p e r s o n ’ s r i g h t t o a p u b l i c

Appellant also c halleng ed his court c osts and arg ued that the judg ment of convic tion 2

incorre ctly

stated that he ha d been f

ound g uilty

of committing a g g rava ted sexual assault of a

child under six y ear s of ag e. The court of a ppeals ove rruled his c ourt-costs cla im, but it ag ree d

that the judg ment of convic tion required modific ation. See P eyrone l v. State , 446 S.W .3d 151,

154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2014, pet. g rante d).

I n this case, we addre ss only whether the normal rule s of proc edura l defa ult apply to the 3

public-trial rig ht. We ex press no opinion as to the propr iety of the trial judg e’s a ctions.Pey ronel –4

t r i a l i s m a n d a t o r y

, s u b

j e c t t o w a i v e r

, o r c a n b e f o r f e i t e d t h r o u g h i n a c t i o n

. W e b e g i n b y 4

d i s c u s s i n g o u r s e m i n a l d e c i s i o n i n M a r i n v

. S t a t e

, 8 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 5 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

.

1 9 9 3 )

.

I n M

a r i n

, w e d i f

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

, r i g h t s

s u b j e c t t o w a i v e r

, a n d r i g h t s s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e

. I d

. a t 2 7 9

. R e g a r d i n g m a n d a t o r i l y

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

, w e s t a t e d t h a t “ [ i ] m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s i s n o t o p t i o n a l

a n d c a n n o t

, t h e r e f

o r e

, b e w a i v e d o r f

o r f e i t e d b y t h e p a r t i e s

. ” I

d

. W e a l s o n o t e d t h a t s o m e

r i g h t s

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

, m a y b e e x p r e s s l y w a i v e d b y a d e f e n d a n t

. I d

.

( c i t i n g J a n e c k a v

. S t a t e

, 7 3 9 S

. W

. 2 d 8 1 3

, 8 2 9 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 8 7 ) ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a

w a i v e r m u s t a m o u n t t o a n “ i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o r a b a n d o n m e n t o f a k n o w n r i g h t

o r p r i v i l e g e ” )

. F i n a l l y

, a d d r e s s i n g r i g h t s t h a t c a n b e f o r f e i t e d b y i n a c t i o n a l o n e

, w e

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

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

. M a n y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s f a l l i n t o t h i s

Howeve r, fifte en y ear s ag o members of this Court sugg ested that the r ight to a public 4

trial is subject to forfe iture. See B lue v. State , 41 S.W .3d 129, 143 n.15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)

(Ke ller, J., di ssenting joined by McCormick, P.J ., and Womack, J.).

I n our re cent de cision of Cameron v. State , No. PD–1427–13, 2014 WL 4996290 (Tex.

Crim. App. Oct. 8, 2014, re h’g g rante d), the State a rg ued that the a

ppellant fa iled to preser

ve her

public-trial complaint for appea l. See id. at *4. Howe ver, w e did not direc tly addre ss the issue of

whether a public-tria l claim is subject to the normal rules of proce dural de fault. More over, our

decision in Cameron is not final beca use we g rante d the State’s motion for re hear ing, w hich is

still pending

. I n Lill y v. State , 365 S.W .3d 321, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), the State arg ued that,

based on the terms of his plea a g ree ment, the appe llant intentionally relinquished his rig ht to a

public trial, not that the appe llant forfe ited his right to a public tr ial. Id. I t is that question that we

must answer toda

y

.Pey ronel –5

c a t e g o r y

. ” I

d

.

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

,

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

, w e l o o k t o o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s f o r

g u i d a n c e

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

p u b l i c t r i a l c a n b e o n l y w a i v e d

. O t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e p u b l i c

- t r i a l r i g h t i s 5

s u b j e c t t o t h e i n v i t e d

- e r r o r d o c t r i n e u n d e r s t a t e l a w o r c a n b e w a i v e d b y c o n s e n t

, b u t o u r 6 7

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

- t r i a l r i g h t t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d

r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e p a r t i e s ’ w i s h e s

. R a t h e r

, w e h a v e f o u n d t h a t t h e m a

j o r i t y o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s

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

- t r i a l r i g h t m a y b e f o r f e i t e d

. I n r e a c h i n g t h a t

8

See W alton v. Briley , 361 F.3d 431, 434 ( 7th Cir. 2004) (holding tha t the fede ral ha beas 5

petitioner had not wa ived his public-trial complaint by failing to object bec ause tha t rig ht may be

relinquished only

upon showing of a know ing a nd voluntary

waiver ).

United States v. Gom ez , 705 F.3d 68, 76 ( 2d Cir. 2013); State v. Be nton , 858 N.W.2d 6

535, 540 (Minn. 2015); In re Coggin , 340 P.3d 810, 815 (Wash. 2014); State v. Cassano , 772

N.E.2d 81, 95 (Ohio 2002)

.

Addai v. Schm alenberge r , 776 F.3d 528, 533 ( 8th Cir. 2015) (citing State v. Addai , 778 7

N.W.2d 555, 570 (N.D. 2010)) ; Commonwealth v. Dye r , 955 N.E.2d 271, 281–82 (Ma ss. 2011).

See, e .g.

, United States v. Christi , 682 F.3d 138, 142–43 ( 1st Cir. 2012); Downs v. Lape

, 8

657 F.3d 97, 108 ( 2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Hitt , 473 F.3d 146, 155 ( 5th Cir. 2006);

Johnson v. She rry , 586 F.3d 439, 444 ( 6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Rive ra , 682 F.3d 1223,

1232 (9th Cir. 2012); State v. Pinno , 850 N.W.2d 207, 227 (Wi s. 2014); People v . Alvarez , 979

N.E.2d 1173, 1176 (N.Y . 2012); Robinson v. State , 976 A.2d 1072, 1079 (Md. 2009); People v

. Vaughn , 821 N.W.2d 288, 303 (Mich. 2012); State v. Butterfield , 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989).

Texas courts of a

ppeals that ha ve addr essed the issue ha ve unanimously

rea ched the

conclusion that the rig ht to a public trial may be for feited. We c ite unpublished opinions,

howeve r, only

for illustrative purpose s and not for pr ece dential value. See, e .g.

, Pena v . State

, 441 S.W .3d 635, 643 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2014, pet. re f’d) ; Hamilton v. State , 2013

WL 485776, at *2 (Te x . App.—Dallas F eb. 6, 2013, pet. r ef’ d) (mem. op.) (not desig nated f or

publication); Turner v. State , 413 S.W .3d 442, 447 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2012, no pet.); Head

v. State , 2010 WL 177779, at *3 (Te x . App.—Ty ler Jan. 20, 2010, pet. ref ’d) ( mem. op.) (notPey ronel –6

c o n c l u s i o n

, m a n y c o u r t s c i t e t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n L e v i n e v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

,

3 6 2 U

. S

. 6 1 0

, 6 1 9 ( 1 9 6 0 )

, a n d a l t h o u g h n o t f a c e d w i t h t h e i s s u e s i n c e

, e v e n t h e 9 1 0

S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s c i t e d L e v i n e f o r t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n

. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o f 1 1

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

s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e

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

t r i a l c l a i m i n t h i s c a s e

.

A P P L IC A T IO N

D u r i n g a b r e a k i n t h e p u n i s h m e n t

- p h a s e p r o c e e d i n g

, a w o m a n t h a t w a s “ p a r t o f t h e

d e f e n s e ” a s k e d a j u r o r h o w i t f e e l s t o c o n v i c t a n i n n o c e n t m a n

. A t a c o n f e r e n c e t h a t

desig nated f

or publication); Luedeck

e v. State , 2010 WL 3049088, at *2 (Te x . App.—Corpus

Christi Aug. 5, 2010, no pe t.) (mem. op.) ( not desig nated f or publication); Mitchell v. State , 377

S.W .3d 21, 29 (Tex. App.—Waco 2011, pet. re f’d, untimely filed); Rodriguez v. State , 2005 WL

899963, at *1 (Te x . App.—San Antonio Apr. 20, 2005, pe t. ref’ d) (mem. op.) (not desig nated f or

publication); cf. W

oods v. State , 383 S.W .3d 775, 780 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.]

2012, no pet. re f’d) (re serving the issue of whe ther a

defe ndant’s public-tria l rig ht may be wa ived

or for feited) ; McEntire v . State , 265 S.W .3d 721, 722 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.).

The Court re lied on the due- proce ss provision of the Fifth Ame ndment to resolve the 9

petitioner’s c laim in Levine beca use the public-tr ial protec tion of the Six th Amendment does not

extend to contempt procee dings. See Lev ine , 362 U.S. at 616. Howeve r, the Court re lied upon

Six th Amendment principles in re solving his claim and ha s subsequently cited Levine for the

proposition that the Six th Amendment public trial ca n be for feited. See infra , note 11; Rivera

, 682 F.3d a t 1233 n.6.

Although the Supreme Court addr essed the Sixt h Amendment public-tria l rig ht after its 1 0

decision in Levine , those ca ses ar e distinguishable beca use the pe titioners in those cases obje cted

at trial. See P resley v . Georgia , 558 U.S. 209, 210 (2010); W aller v. Ge orgia , 467 U.S. 39, 42

(1984).

Peretz v . United States , 501 U.S. 923, 936 (1991) (c iting Levine , 362 U.S. at 619);

1 1

Freytag v . Commissioner , 501 U.S. 868, 896(1991) (c iting Levine , 362 U.S. at 619) (Sca lia, J

.,

concur ring in part and c oncurr ing in judg ment, joined by O’Connor, Ke nnedy , and Souter, JJ .).Pey ronel –7

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

, t h e j u d g e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e

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

f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e

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

w a s t o o b r o a d a n d w o u l d “ c r e a t e t h e i m p r e s s i o n i n t h e j u r y ’ s m i n d t h a t [ A p p e l l a n t ] h a s

a b s o l u t e l y n o s u p p o r t w h a t s o e v e r h e r e

. ” F r o m t h i s e x c e r p t

, i t a p p e a r s t o u s t h a t A p p e l l a n t

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

s u p p o r t h i m

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

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

v i o l a t e d

. W e a g r e e w i t h A p p e l l a n t t h a t h e w a s n o t r e q u i r e d t o u s e “ m a g i c l a n g u a g e ” t o

1 2

p r e s e r v e h i s p u b l i c

- t r i a l c o m p l a i n t f o r r e v i e w

, b u t A p p e l l a n t h a d t h e b u r d e n t o “ s t a t e [ ] t h e

g r o u n d s f

o r t h e r u l i n g

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

i c i t y t o m a k e

t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t

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

c o n t e x t

. ” T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 3 3

. 1

. I n s t e a d

, A p p e l l a n t i s n o w t r y i n g t o “ r a i s e a n a b s t r a c t

c l a i m

. . . a s a n a f

t e r t h o u g h t o n a p p e a l

. ” S e e L e v i n e

, 3 6 2 U

. S

. a t 6 2 0

. W e s u s t a i n t h e

S t a t e ’ s g r o u n d f

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

We decline to hold that any objection to the exclusion of any non-esse ntial person fr om 1 2

the cour troom during a trial pre serve s a public-tria l complaint for re view. We have stated that

“the c omplaining pa

rty must let the trial judge know what she wants and w hy she thinks she is

entitled to it, and do so clear ly enoug h for the judg e to under stand and a t a time when the tr ial

court is in a position to do something about it.” Bek endam v . State , 441 S.W .3d 295, 300 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014). I n this case, if the trial court ha d understood Appe llant’s objection as a

complaint that his right to a public tr ial was violated, it would have been in a position t o hold a

W aller hear ing to de termine if the c ourtroom was imper missibl y closed. See W

aller , 467 U.S. at

39. Moreove r, if the tria l court ruled a g ainst Appellant af ter holding a W

aller hear ing, his

complaint would have be en pre serve d for r eview. See T E X

. R. A P P . 33.1.Pey ronel –8

p r e s e r v e d a p u b l i c

- t r i a l c o m p l a i n t f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w

.

H e r v e y

, J

.

D e l i v e r e d : J u n e 2 4

, 2 0 1 5

P u b l i s h