Court Opinion

ID: 9665844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:58:08.454947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:19.386538
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. As a practical matter, the majority opinion makes a defendant’s sentence for an offense committed before September 1,1987, off limits to cumulation orders involving sentences for crimes committed in another state. Of course, this assumes that Texas sentences can be cumulated with out-of-state sentences — an issue the majority decides to duck in this ease.1
Appellant was convicted of the Texas offense in 1986. During the pendency of his appeal from this conviction, appellant was convicted of another offense in Virginia on September 21, 1987, for which he received a 20-year sentence. Appellant was serving the 20-year Virginia sentence in the Texas prison system when in 1993 he was finally sentenced for the 1986 Texas conviction. The trial court cumulated appellant’s sentences by requiring the Texas sentence to begin when the Virginia sentence ceases to operate. Had appellant committed the Virginia offense in Texas, there is no question that the trial court could have cumulated the sentence for that offense with the sentence appellant received for the 1986 Texas offense under the statutory scheme then in effect. The Legislature amended Article 42.08(a), VAC.C.P., in 1987 to “allow cumulation with an out-of-state sentence.” See Cook, 824 S.W.2d at 641 — 43.
This case does not present a situation where appellant was already serving concurrent sentences and then the Legislature required him to serve them consecutively. Nor does this case present a situation where the Legislature has increased any actual sentence appellant is serving such as, for example, requiring appellant to serve 50 years when the statutory maximum he could have received when he committed the offense was *59425 years. This clearly would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See, e.g., Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 428, 433-35, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 2453, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987); Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 24-28, 101 S.Ct. 960, 962-63, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981); Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U.S. 397, 400-02, 57 S.Ct. 797, 799, 81 L.Ed. 1182 (1937). No one claims the actual sentences appellant received for his multiple crimes violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Appellant’s claim is that the Legislature cannot require him to serve these legal sentences consecutively.
But, the issue in this case is whether the 1987 amendment to Article 42.08(a) “changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to a criminal offense when committed.” (Emphasis Supplied). See Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 41-43, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990). The 1987 amendment to Article 42.08(a) has not changed the punishment or inflicted a greater punishment for appellant’s multiple crimes than what the law “attached to” them when appellant committed them. The Legislature has only required appellant to serve his legal sentences consecutively. That appellant is being “more harshly”2 punished, because he has to serve his sentences consecutively rather than concurrently, is, therefore, irrelevant to the ex post facto analysis. See California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S.-,-fn. 3, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 1602 fn. 3, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (focus of the ex post facto inquiry is not on whether an amendment affects a prisoner’s opportunity to take advantage of provisions for early release’ ” but on whether any such change alters the definition of criminal conduct or increases the penalty by which a crime is punishable). (Emphasis in Original).
The majority opinion is, in effect, breaking new ground here by adding another element to the 200-year-old, well-settled definition of an ex post facto law contained in Collins. See Collins, 497 U.S. at 41-13, 110 S.Ct. at 2719; Colder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390-92, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (Chase, J.). And, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that our founding fathers and the voters who adopted the Ex Post Facto Clause did so intending for criminals to serve concurrent sentences for multiple crimes they commit. Cf. Lan-ford v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 847 S.W.2d 581, 585 (Tex.Cr.App.1993) (primary goal in the interpretation of a constitutional provision is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the voters who adopted it). I would hold the Ex Post Facto Clause does not speak to the circumstances presented by this case. See also McDonald v. Lee, 217 F.2d 619, 625 (5th Cir.1954), vacated, 349 U.S. 948, 75 S.Ct. 893, 99 L.Ed. 1274 (1955).
I respectfully dissent.
WHITE, MANSFIELD and KELLER, JJ., join this dissent.

. As a preliminary matter, the majority opinion declines to adopt the holding of the Dallas Court of Appeals in Cook v. State, 824 S.W.2d 634, 641-43 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991), pet. ref'd, Cook v. State, 828 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). Cook held the 1987 amendment to Article 42.08(a), V.A.C.C.P., “changed the law and allowed Texas sentences to be cumulated with federal and out-of-state sentences.” See Cook, 824 S.W.2d at 641-43. The majority says that whether the Court of Appeals in Cook "properly construed the amendment” is “not before us today.”
I disagree. It is necessary to address whether the Court of Appeals in Cook properly construed the 1987 amendment before addressing the Federal constitutional question the Court addresses here, because, if the Court of Appeals did not properly construe the 1987 amendment, then it would be unnecessary to address the Federal constitutional question. I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision in Cook. But, since the majority ducks the issue, some might argue their opinion in this case is merely advisory pending resolution of the question presented in Cook. In other words, if the Court of Appeals did not properly construe the 1987 amendment to Article 42.08(a), then the majority is wasting their time addressing the Federal constitutional issue in this case.

. See Basden v. State, 897 S.W.2d 319 (Tex.Cr. App.1995). In Basden, the defendant invited this Court to construe Article 42.08(b), V.A.C.C.P., in such a manner that a prisoner would either not be deterred from committing a second prison offense or would not receive any punishment for the first prison offense, depending upon the severity of the second prison offense. See Basden, 897 S.W.2d at 322. We declined the invitation to construe Article 42.08(b) in this manner.