Court Opinion

ID: 9777683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:19:47.071455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:59.256374
License: Public Domain

*200
CONCURRING OPINION TO DENIAL OF APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur to the denial of appellee’s motion for rehearing. I write separately to respond to Judge Meyers’ dissenting opinion to the denial of appellee’s motion for rehearing (“the dissent”).
This dissent claims the Court’s opinion on original submission “rests in large part on its resolution of an issue” that was “not presented as a ground upon which review was granted by this Court.” See State v. Brabson, 976 S.W.2d at 203 (Meyers, J., dissenting) (op. on denial of reh’g). Because of this, the dissent claims the parties have not had an opportunity to brief and argue the “parties” issue.
I respectfully disagree. This Court granted discretionary review to decide whether collateral estoppel effect should be given in a subsequent criminal prosecution to findings made in a civil license revocation administrative proceeding. See Brabson, 976 S.W.2d at 190 fn 1 (Baird, J., dissenting) (op. on orig. sub’m) (setting out verbatim ground one of appellee’s petition for discretionary review). The Court’s opinion on original submission appropriately addresses all questions of law “predicate to an intelligent resolution” of this question on which we granted discretionary review. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1715 fn. 6, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (discretionary review courts must address subsidiary questions of law “predicate to an intelligent resolution” of the question upon which discretionary review is granted); Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 100 S.Ct. 540, 544 fn. 5, 62 L.Ed.2d 461 (1980) (same plus discretionary review courts may in appropriate circumstances address questions of law not presented in petition for discretionary review). And, given the common-law elements of collateral estoppel, the parties have had an opportunity to brief the “parties” issue.
The dissent also revisits the merits of the Court’s disposition on original submission of the “parties” issue. Relying solely on the caption of the pleadings and other papers filed in the civil license revocation administrative proceedings and the subsequent criminal prosecution, the dissent claims the Department of Public Safety and the Dallas County District Attorney are the same parties for collateral estoppel purposes. However, I respectfully submit this position exalts form over substance and fails to take into account the various public policy concerns for deciding the Department of Public Safety and the Dallas County District Attorney are not the same parties for collateral estoppel purposes in cases like this.
Various other courts that have considered the “parties” issue in cases like this have not uniformly held one way or the other on the issue. The dissent cites out-of-state cases that would support holding the Department of Public Safety and the Dallas County District Attorney are the same parties for collateral estoppel purposes. See Brabson, 976 S.W.2d at 204-206 (Meyers, J., dissenting) (op. on denial of reh’g). The dissent also cites other out-of-state cases that would support a contrary holding. See id.
There is considerable weight of authority from other jurisdictions that support the Court’s holding on original submission on the “parties” issue. See id.; see also eases collected in Annotation, Doctrine of Res Judica-ta or Collateral Estoppel As Barring Relit-igation in State Criminal Proceedings of Issues Previously Decided in Administrative Proceedings, 30 A.L.R.4th 856, 860-64 (1996). It cannot be said the Court’s holding on original submission on the “parties” issue represents a distinct minority view among the various jurisdictions that have considered the issue.1
*201At least one case has labeled the Court’s analysis on original submission of the “parties” issue as being “too simplistic.” See 30 A.L.R.4th at 858, fn. 5 (citing People v. Sims, 32 Cal.3d 468, 186 Cal.Rptr. 77, 651 P.2d 321 (1982)). This, among other things, is another example of the judiciary, which it has been prone to do for some years now, making a simple question more complicated than it really is. With all respect due the California court in Sims, the analysis in cases like this of the “parties” question is really that simple.
The simple fact of the matter is that no one, not even the dissenting opinions in this ease, claims the Dallas County District Attorney had an opportunity to litigate the probable cause issue in the civil license revocation administrative proceeding. This in large part should be dispositive of the collateral estoppel question since that doctrine precludes relitigation of issues that a party has had an opportunity to litigate. This is not to mention the public policy concerns that should be factored into the collateral estoppel analysis which none of the dissenting opinions in this case do. See 30 A.L.R.4th at 860-64 (practical public policy considerations require that most questions such as “reasonable cause to arrest” are more appropriately addressed in the criminal justice system).
Finally, the dissent cites Justice Cohen’s dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. State which contains the most thoughtful and most constructive criticism of this Court’s decision on original submission on the “parties” issue. See Reynolds v. State, 967 S.W.2d 493, 496-97 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet. history) (Cohen, J., dissenting). However, I must respectfully disagree with Justice Cohen’s position.
Justice Cohen’s dissent claims, as a matter of state law, that the Department of Public Safety and the Dallas County District Attorney are not parties at all, but instead are two governmental entities in the same branch of government representing the same party or client which is the people of the State of Texas. See Reynolds, 967 S.W.2d at 497 (Cohen, J., dissenting) (Dallas County District Attorney is a lawyer, not a party). This is analogous to the same private client or party being represented by a private lawyer seeking to relitigate in a subsequent proceeding the same issue that was resolved adversely to the private client in a prior proceeding when the client was represented by another lawyer. Of course when a fact issue is resolved against a private citizen represented by lawyer A in proceeding 1, that same private citizen cannot relitigate the same fact issue in proceeding 2 on the basis that the private citizen is now represented by lawyer B.
While there is some validity to the position that the Department of Public Safety and the Dallas County District Attorney represent the same client which is the citizens of this State, these governmental entities should nevertheless be considered separate parties for collateral estoppel purposes based primarily on practical public policy considerations. In addition, the citizens of this State have no power, as a private litigant does, to control the course of the litigation by the lawyers representing these governmental entities. These lawyers exercise governmental powers in the public interest. They do not represent any particular private citizen or private interest as does a private lawyer. The reader will not find private citizens sitting at the same table as the District Attorney or the lawyer representing the Department of Public Safety.
And, sometimes the rules that apply to private lawyers representing private citizens do not apply to public lawyers exercising governmental powers in the public interest. For example, it has been held in a somewhat different but related context that “when a unit of government is exercising its governmental powers, it is not subject to estoppel.” See Hardman v. State, 614 S.W.2d 123, 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); see also State v. Durham, 860 S.W.2d 63, 67-68 (Tex.1993) (State in its sovereign capacity, unlike ordinary litigants, is not subject to defense of estoppel).
Justice Cohen’s dissent also claims, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that the Court’s holding on original submission on the “parties” issue is questionable under Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 1188-*20289, 25 L.Ed.2d 485 (1970). See Reynolds, 967 S.W.2d at 497 (Cohen, J., dissenting). Waller held, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that a defendant could not under the “dual sovereignty” doctrine be criminally prosecuted twice “for the same alleged crime” in a municipal and then in a state court. See Waller, 90 S.Ct. at 1186-88,
However, Waller has no application to the case at bar. The Court’s opinion on original submission pointed out that this case does not implicate federal constitutional double jeopardy principles or the rule of collateral estoppel as “embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy.” See Brabson, 976 S.W.2d at 183 fn 2 (op. on orig. subm’n). This case does not involve a situation where a defendant is being criminally prosecuted twice for the same offense.2
This is the main reason this case does not implicate the Supreme Court’s federal double jeopardy holding in Ashe v. Swenson and why our Legislature can expressly provide in the current law3 that the determination of the administrative judge' “does not preclude litigation of the same or similar facts in a criminal prosecution.” See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1195, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (a “successive criminal prosecution” case holding the rule of collateral estop-pel as “embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy” may bar a later criminal prosecution for a separate offense where the Government has lost an earlier criminal prosecution involving the same facts);4 see also State v. Ratliff, 304 Or. 254, 744 P.2d 247, 248 (1987) (in cases like this there is no constitutional basis for a double jeopardy challenge because no criminal sanctions are imposed as a consequence of the first proceeding); State v. MacLean, 560 A.2d 1088 (Me.1989); State v. Warfield, 854 S.W.2d 9, 11-12 (Mo.Ct.App.1993). This discussion addresses the concerns expressed on page eight of Judge Meyers’ dissent on rehearing and makes inapplicable the discussion contained in Judge Baird’s dissent on original submission.
With these comments, I concur to the denial of appellee’s motion for rehearing.
KELLER, J., joins this concurring opinion.

. In addition, were we to accept the argument that collateral estoppel applies in cases like this, then we would also have to decide this doctrine precludes defendants from relitigating some issues in subsequent criminal prosecutions that were decided adversely to them in prior administrative proceedings. For example, in this case had the Department of Public Safety won on the issue of probable cause for appellee's arrest in the civil license revocation administrative proceeding, then appellee could not relitigate this issue against the Dallas County District Attorney in the subsequent criminal prosecution. I have yet to find anyone who would accept this proposition. However, there is no reason why in cases *201like this collateral estoppel should be a one-way street benefitting only criminal defendants.

. The license revocation administrative proceeding was a civil proceeding, not a criminal prosecution.

. See Brabson, 976 S.W.2d at 185 fn 6 (op. on orig. subm’n); Texas Transportation Code, Section 724.048(a)(3).

. The lynchpin of Ashe has been undermined or overruled sub silentio by the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in U.S. v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 637, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997) (jury cannot be said to have "necessarily rejected” any facts when it returns a general verdict of not guilty). See also Ashe, 397 U.S. at 460-70, 90 S.Ct. 1189 (Burger, C.J., dissenting).