Court Opinion

ID: 9682755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:16:15.87564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:41.228243
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority holds that a defendant, after setting aside a void indictment, can be given neither an increased sentence nor charged with a more serious offense. They also conclude that this case must be reversed and remanded rather than returned for assessment of punishment.
An indictment is fundamentally defective only when it fails to allege an offense against the laws of Texas and, thus, does not invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. American Plant Food Corporation v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Ex parte Cannon, 546 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) (concurring opinion). When a case is tried on such an indictment, the proceeding and judgment are void.
*123The instant case presents a question concerning the effect of such an absolutely void conviction. The majority concludes that following a void conviction the State may not reindict on a charge more serious than the purported charge contained in the original indictment and the subsequent sentence may not be greater than the original sentence. In so doing, the majority improperly attaches significance to the original proceeding. A void conviction has no significance; it was obtained by a court lacking jurisdiction and is a nullity. This case should be considered as if the original trial, a nullity, did not occur. Thus, the record would indicate only that the State attempted to indict the appellant for injury to á child. At a subsequent date, the State secured a murder indictment. The majority would not hold that such a reindictment would be improper.
The logic of the majority quickly falls apart when other situations are considered. For example, had appellants been acquitted at the void proceeding, would the majority hold that double jeopardy prevented a subsequent trial upon a valid indictment? Its logic in this case indicates that double jeopardy would bar such a prosecution. Thus, we would be left with the curious result that a void proceeding is void with respect to a conviction but not an acquittal. A good rule of law works both ways. A void proceeding must be just that — void; for legal purposes, it never happened. The majority makes it void sometimes and not-so-void at other times.
The majority reverses and remands this case because “the appellants have been convicted of the more serious offense of murder.” Even assuming there was error in the case, the disposition is not proper.
In determining the proper relief, it is appropriate to determine the exact injury of which complaint is made. Here, appellants complain of both prosecutorial and judicial vindictiveness. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). Both Blaekledge and Pearce are bottomed on the theory that a defendant should neither be deterred from, nor penalized for, appealing a conviction. Thus, after successfully attacking a conviction, the State may not prosecute on a more serious charge nor may a judge impose a more severe sentence. However, Pearce and Blaekledge did not impose an absolute bar to increased punishment. When a jury, uninformed of the prior proceedings, assesses a greater punishment or the increased punishment is based on identifiable, objective facts which occur after the original sentencing, the due process clause is not offended. Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973); North Carolina v. Pearce, supra.
The injury, then, is a vindictive indictment and sentence which would serve to deter the defendant. The vindictive nature of the punishment could be cured by a remand for punishment. Bouie v. State, 565 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). However, the majority rejects the remand for punishment because “murder”.is more severe than “injury to a child.” The legal consequences of both convictions are the same.
If the causes must be remanded, they should be sent back for the proper assessment of punishment not to exceed twenty years.