Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/can-the-statute-of-limitations-be-waived-the-judges-revisit-and-%C2%ADoverrule-recent-precedent/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:18:18+00:00

Document:
In October 2008, Eric Heilman was a police officer in Beaumont. He took part in a failed undercover narcotics sting with a confidential informant and another officer. Even though no transaction occurred, he still arrested the suspected drug dealer when he tried to leave, seizing cash and a large amount of cocaine. When Heilman wrote his probable-cause affidavit, though, he did not mention either the undercover operation or his confidential informant. Ultimately, a prosecutor pro tem began a grand-jury investigation into Heilman. No indictment or information was ever returned, but in December 2010 Heilman pleaded guilty to tampering with a governmental record. In exchange, the State agreed to not indict him for a state-jail offense and to not oppose early termination of his deferred adjudication. As part of the plea, Heilman signed a written waiver of the statute of limitations.
The Heilman court reexamined Phillips and determined that it was overbroad by applying the Ex Post Facto clause to all prosecutions after the statute of limitations expires when the Clause applies only to legislative actions.11 Thus, while the Legislature could not pass a law extending the statute of limitations in Heilman’s case, that does not necessarily prohibit non-legislative actions that might result in his prosecution, such as a waiver and plea as in the instant case.
The Court examined several post-Stogner Supreme Court decisions to ultimately conclude that a defendant “must be able to point to a legislative origin of the alleged violation.”12 This does not mean that the legislature must act directly. For example, a judge’s application of federal sentencing guidelines that were retrospectively increased after the date that the defendant committed the offense will still trigger the Ex Post Facto Clause because such application creates a significant risk of a higher sentence.13 A state parole board could also violate the Clause by changing its rules retroactively.14 But courts exercising pure judicial power—such as accepting a plea bargain—do not implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
So what does Heilman mean for future practice? It should not be read too broadly in future ex post facto challenges to argue that the Clause could not be invoked simply because the actor involved was a court rather than the legislature. The Court took care to caution that the Ex Post Facto Clause can still be invoked by judicial action if it involves, for example, reinterpretation or extension of an existing statute.22 But the required connection to some sort of legislative action is still important to remember when facing any claims of ex post facto laws in the future. More straightforwardly, Heilman simplifies the rules when considering statute of limitations claims. No longer must we examine such claims to decide if they are “pure law” or factual claims. Rather, the same rule applies to each, and a defendant waives any statute of limitations argument if he does not raise it at the time of trial.
1 Ex parte Heilman, No. PD-1591-13, slip op. (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 18, 2015) (not yet published).
2 State v. Heilman, 413 S.W.3d 503, 505-508 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013).
3 Phillips v. State, 362 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
4 Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
5 Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840, 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
6 Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 617.
8 Ieppert v. State, 908 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
9 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
10 Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 614.
11 Heilman, slip op. at 7-8.
12 Id., slip op. at 11.
13 Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2083–85 (2013).
14 Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000).
15 Heilman, slip op. at 12 (citing Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 616).
17 Id., Meyers dissent at 2-3.
18 Id., Johnson dissent at 5-6.
19 Id., Newell concurrence at 1-2.
20 Id., Alcala dissent at 6-7.
21 Id., Newell concurrence at 3-4.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.