Court Opinion

ID: 4210966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-10-12 03:16:06.564652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:01.095171
License: Public Domain

PD-0710-17
                                               COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                                               AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                Transmitted 10/9/2017 10:24 PM
                                                  Accepted 10/10/2017 1:07 PM
                                                          DEANA WILLIAMSON
                    No. PD-0710-17                                      CLERK

                                                  FILED
                                         COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL     APPEALS 10/10/2017
                                          DEANA WILLIAMSON, CLERK
                    OF TEXAS

                    EX PARTE
             ELIZABETH ANN GARRELS

              On Discretionary Review
           from the Ninth Court of Appeals
                  Beaumont, Texas
                  No. 09-17-00038-CR

     On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
             Montgomery County, Texas
                  Cause No. 17-29859

        APPELLANT’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS

                             MATTHEW J. DELUCA
                             State Bar No. 24069601
                             712 Main St., Suite 2450
                             Houston, Texas 77002
                             Tel: (713) 429-4400
                             Fax: (713) 228-2366
                             matt@mattdelucalaw.com
                             Attorney for Appellant

Oral Argument Permitted
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

                     Appellant
               Elizabeth Ann Garrels

             Appellant’s Trial Counsel
                  James Fletcher
                1017 Heights Blvd.
               Houston, Texas 77008

           Appellant’s Appellate Counsel
                 Matthew DeLuca
              712 Main St., Suite 2450
               Houston, Texas 77002

                     Appellee
                 The State of Texas

            Appellee’s Trial Counsel
                  Phillip Harris
                Wesley LeRouax
                 Brent Chappel
    Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office
           207 W. Phillips St., 2nd Floor
              Conroe, Texas 77304

          Appellee’s Appellate Counsel
                  Jason Larman
    Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office
           207 W. Phillips St., 2nd Floor
              Conroe, Texas 77304

                   Trial Judge
            The Honorable Keith Stewart
             County Court at Law No. 5
            Montgomery County, Texas

                         i
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identification of Parties and Counsel ........................................................................ i

Table of Contents .................................................................................................... ii

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................ iii

Statement of the Case ............................................................................................... 1

Issue for Review ....................................................................................................... 2

         Has a defendant who did not object to a trial court’s declaration
         of mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do so, impliedly
         consented to the mistrial?

Statement of Facts ................................................................................................... 2

Summary of the Argument ....................................................................................... 5

Issue for Review Restated .........................................................................................6

Argument .................................................................................................................6

    I.    The court of appeals only considered the failure to object in its
          implied consent analysis ................................................................................6

    II. Implied consent must be based on the totality of the circumstances ............. 7

         A. Torres does not support the court of appeals’ per se rule ......................... 8

         B.     Failure to object to a mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity
                to do so, does not constitute implied consent per se ................................9

         C. The court of appeals’ per se rule fails to consider the totality of
            the circumstances ................................................................................. 11

                                                        ii
    III. Under the totality of the circumstances, Garrels did not consent
         to the mistrial .............................................................................................. 11

Prayer ..................................................................................................................... 14

Certificate of Compliance ....................................................................................... 15

Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 15

                                                          iii
                              INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Arizona v. Washington
    434 U.S. 497 (1978) ...........................................................................................6

Ex parte Garrels
    No. 09-17-00038-CR, 2017 WL 1953282, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 4225
    (Tex. App.—Beaumont, May 10, 2017, pet. granted) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication) ............................................................................. 1,6

Ex parte Jackson
    Nos. 09-14-00138-CR, 09-14-00139-CR, 09-00140-CR, 2014 WL
3845780, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8542 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 6,
    2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) .......................... 6,7

Ex parte Little
    887 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) ...................................................... 6,9,10

Favorite v. State
    No. 09-16-00162-CR, 2017 WL 2687470, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5656
    (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 21, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication) ................................................................................ 7

Hill v. State
     90 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) .............................................................6

Little v. State
      853 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) rev’d sub nom. Ex
      parte Little, 887 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) ......................................... 10

Pierson v. State
     426 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ..................................................... 10,11

Pierson v. State
     398 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) aff’d, 426 S.W.3d 763 (Tex.
     Crim. App. 2014) ............................................................................................ 10

                                                     iv
Torres v. State
     614 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ...................................................... 6,7,8

United States v. Goldman
    439 F. Supp. 358 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) .......................................................................9

United States v. Goldstein
    479 F.2d 1061 (2nd Cir. 1973) .............................................................................9

United States v. Smith
    621 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1980) ........................................................................... 8,9

Constitutions

TEX. CONST. ART. 1, § 14 ..........................................................................................6

U.S. CONST. AMEND. V .............................................................................................6

                                                     v
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

     ELIZABETH ANN GARRELS, Appellant, in accordance with Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 70, files this brief on the merits.

                       STATEMENT OF THE CASE

     This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of Garrels’s application

for writ of habeas corpus claiming double jeopardy in a driving while

intoxicated (“DWI”) case. 1 Garrels was charged by information with

misdemeanor DWI. (SCR 4).2 On July 11, 2016, after a jury was sworn and

testimony had begun, the trial judge sua sponte declared a mistrial. (1 RR 64).

On January 30, 2017, the trial judge denied Garrels’s application for writ of

habeas corpus, and Garrels appealed. (CR 89-91; 2 RR 11). The Ninth Court

of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order in a memorandum opinion. Ex

parte Garrels, No. 09-17-00038-CR, 2017 WL 1953282, 2017 Tex. App.

LEXIS 4225 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, May 10, 2017) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). On June 6, 2017, Garrels’s motion for rehearing

was denied. On August 23, 2017, this Court granted Garrels’s petition for

discretionary review.

																																																								
1
  Garrels’s application for writ of habeas corpus was assigned a separate cause number,
17-29859, but related to the criminal matters in cause number 15-309944.
2
   The original clerk’s record, filed on February 6, 2017, will be designated as “CR.” The
supplemental clerk’s record, filed on March 27, 2017, will be designated as “SCR.”
                           ISSUE FOR REVIEW

      Has a defendant who did not object to a trial court’s
      declaration of mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do
      so, impliedly consented to the mistrial?

                        STATEMENT OF FACTS

     On October 27, 2015, Garrels was charged by information with driving

while intoxicated, alleged to have occurred on October 24, 2015. (SCR 4).

Garrels filed a pre-trial written discovery request that included a specific

request for the State to disclose the name and address of each person it may

use at trial to present expert testimony at least 20 days before trial. (SCR 15).

     On July 11, 2016, a jury was sworn and trial began. (1 RR 7). Garrels

pleaded “not guilty” to the charge, and each party presented an opening

statement. The State then called its first witness, Trooper Christopher

Lucchese, to testify. (1 RR 11-16). During direct examination, Garrels

objected to Lucchese’s testimony as an expert witness, on the grounds that

the State failed to timely disclose expert witness information under article

39.14(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. (1 RR 47).

     The State conceded that it had violated article 39.14(b) by failing to

timely disclose its expert witness list at least 20 days before trial. (1 RR 55, 57,

59). The trial judge found that the statute had been violated, and sustained

	                                        2
Garrels’s objection. (1 RR 52, 55-56). The State requested that the trial judge

grant a continuance, rather than exclude the testimony of the expert

witnesses. Garrels opposed a continuance, arguing it would unfairly allow the

State to correct its error.3 (1 RR 56-57). The trial judge was not inclined to

continue the case to a date that the State was in compliance with the

discovery order, which he estimated to be July 27, because the jurors had

been told the trial would only last three days. (1 RR 60). At this point, the

trial court took a break. (1 RR 61).

      Once back on the record, the trial judge stated that he would declare a

mistrial, which he believed “would basically be the same as resetting but not

with the same jury.” (1 RR 61). But the prosecutor immediately cautioned

that unless Garrels requested the mistrial, there would need to be a finding of

manifest necessity, or the State would be barred from future prosecution.

The trial judge indicated his understanding that Garrels had not and would

not be requesting a mistrial. (1 RR 61-62). The prosecutor proposed that the

trial judge instead consider “less drastic measures,” such as admitting the

expert testimony, excluding the expert testimony, or granting a continuance.

(1 RR 63). The prosecutor told the trial judge that if a mistrial was declared,

																																																								
3
  Garrels’s trial counsel indicated that the State had previously been granted at least one
continuance on the day of trial. (1 RR 56-57).

	                                           3
he anticipated that the State would try to re-file the case, and Garrels would

object on double jeopardy grounds. (1 RR 63-64). The trial judge declared a

mistrial, to which the State objected. (1 RR 64-65). The record reflects that

Garrels remained silent after the mistrial was declared.

     On January 27, 2017, Garrels filed an application for writ of habeas

corpus, alleging a double jeopardy claim. (CR4). In an affidavit attached to

the writ, Garrels’s trial counsel stated that he did not consent to a mistrial.

(SCR 70). The trial judge denied the writ. (CR 89, 2 RR 11).

	                                      4
                 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

     The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a

State from twice putting a defendant in jeopardy for the same crime. And if a

mistrial occurs once a jury is sworn, double jeopardy bars retrial unless the

defendant consents to the mistrial or a manifest necessity exists for the

mistrial. A defendant’s consent to mistrial can be expressed or implied. Here,

the court of appeals held that a defendant’s failure to object to a trial court’s

declaration of mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do so, alone

constitutes implied consent to the mistrial. But this Court has rejected such a

per se rule, and instead has held that a reviewing court must consider the

totality of the circumstances when determining whether a defendant

consented to a mistrial. The court of appeals erroneously failed to consider

the totality of the circumstances in its analysis. And under the totality of the

circumstances, the record does not reflect that Garrels consented to the

mistrial.

	                                      5
                 ISSUE FOR REVIEW RESTATED

     Has a defendant who did not object to a trial court’s
     declaration of mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do
     so, impliedly consented to the mistrial?

                               ARGUMENT

     A defendant cannot be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. U.S.

CONST. amend. V; TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 14; Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S.
497, 503 (1978); Hill v. State, 90 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). As

a general rule, if a defendant is put in jeopardy, and the jury is then

discharged without reaching a verdict, double jeopardy will bar retrial. Ex

parte Little, 887 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). An exception to this

rule is made if the defendant consents to a retrial, or if a retrial is mandated

by manifest necessity. Torres v. State, 614 S.W.2d 436, 441 (Tex. Crim. App.

1981). Consent can be expressed or implied from the totality of the

circumstances attendant to the declaration of mistrial. Id.

I.   The court of appeals only considered the failure to object in its
     implied consent analysis.

     In its memorandum opinion, the Ninth Court of Appeals held that a

“defendant who does not object to the trial judge’s sua sponte declaration of a

mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do so, has impliedly consented to

the mistrial.” Garrels, slip op. at 4 (citing Ex parte Jackson, Nos. 09-14-00138-

	                                      6
CR, 09-14-00139-CR, 09-00140-CR, 2014 WL 3845780, 2014 Tex. App.

LEXIS 8542, at *6-7 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 6, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem.

op., not designated for publication)). The court concluded that Garrels

consented to the mistrial solely because her “counsel had an adequate

opportunity to object…but did not do so.” Garrels, slip op. at 5. The court

followed the same holding it had in Jackson, adopting a per se rule – that a

defendant’s failure to object to a mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to

do so, always constitutes implied consent.4 In Jackson, the court cited Torres

in support of this per se rule. Jackson, at *6. But the court’s reliance on Torres

is misplaced, as this Court has never held that a failure to object to a mistrial,

despite an adequate opportunity to do so, by itself constitutes implied

consent. Such a strict rule conflicts with prior decisions of this Court, of

other Texas courts, and of federal courts.

II.   Implied consent must be based on the totality of the circumstances.

      This Court has long held that when analyzing implied consent to a

mistrial, a reviewing court must consider “the totality of the circumstances

attendant to the declaration of mistrial.” Torres, 614 S.W.2dd at 441.

																																																								
4
   Before this Court granted review, the court of appeals recognized this per se rule in
another unpublished opinion. See Favorite v. State, No. 09-16-00162-CR, 2017 WL
2687470, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5656, at *18 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 21, 2017, no
pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

	                                          7
      A. Torres does not support the court of appeals’ per se rule.

      In Torres, this Court considered whether a defendant had impliedly

consented to be retried because of a failure to object to the court’s

declaration of mistrial. In finding that the defendant did not consent to the

mistrial, this Court cautioned, “before a failure to object constitutes an

implied consent to a mistrial, a defendant must be given an adequate

opportunity to object to the court’s motion.” Torres, 614 S.W.2d at 441-42.

      The court of appeals has misconstrued Torres to read that a failure to

object to a mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do so, creates implied

consent per se. But Torres does not stand for such a rule. Instead, Torres

instructs that a failure to object can be considered in a reviewing court’s

consent analysis, but only if a defendant was given an adequate opportunity

to object. A reviewing court must still consider the totality of the

circumstances when analyzing consent to a mistrial. This Court cited

multiple federal opinions in Torres that are instructive on the issue of implied

consent analysis, and support this interpretation. Torres, 614 S.W.2d at 441-

42.

      In United States v. Smith, the Second Circuit determined that a

defendant had impliedly consented to a mistrial based, not solely on

	                                      8
counsel’s failure to object, but on the totality of the circumstances. In

addition to the failure to object, the court found that defense counsel’s

comments after mistrial affirmatively indicated his understanding that there

would be a retrial. 621 S.W.2d 350, 352 (9th Cir. 1980). In United States v.

Goldstein, the court would not hold that the failure to object constituted

implied consent, but instead was one of several probative factors from which

consent may be implied. 479 F.2d 1061, 1067 n.11 (2nd Cir. 1973). In United

States v. Goldman, the court held that a failure to object to a mistrial may not,

in and of itself, constitute consent, but it is a factor to be considered. 439
F. Supp. 358, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). That this Court cited these cases in Torres

indicates its intention that “a defendant’s failure to object, despite an

adequate opportunity to do so” should be a factor in an implied consent

analysis, but not the factor.

     B. Failure to object to a mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to
        do so, does not constitute implied consent per se.

     Since Torres, this Court has refused to hold that a defendant’s failure to

object to a mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do so, alone will

constitute implied consent.

     In Little, this Court rejected such a per se rule on the failure to object to

a mistrial. 887 S.W.2d at 66. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals initially held

	                                       9
that consent to a mistrial was implied if a defendant had an adequate

opportunity to object, but failed to do so. Little v. State, 853 S.W.2d 767, 767

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) rev’d sub nom. Ex parte Little, 887
S.W.2d 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). On review, this Court reversed, finding

that it could not infer from the totality of the circumstances that the

defendant consented to the mistrial. This Court reasoned that if it held that a

defendant waived his objection merely by failing to state, “I object,” it would

be to adopting hypertechnicalities it had previously rejected. 5 Little, 887
S.W.2d at 66.

     More recently, this Court affirmed a Sixth Court of Appeals decision

holding that a defendant did not consent to a mistrial, despite his failure to

object. In Pierson v. State, the Sixth Court of Appeals determined that the

totality of the circumstances failed to establish that the defendant consented

to a mistrial, though he did not object to it. 398 S.W.3d 406, 412 n.4 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2013) aff’d, 426 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The

court refused to infer consent from a silent record, reasoning that once the

trial judge announced its intention to declare a mistrial, it was reasonable

trial strategy not to challenge the decision. Id. On discretionary review, this

																																																								
5
  This Court noted that it did not need to decide the issue of whether a defendant’s
silence in the face of a mistrial amounted to consent. Little, 887 S.W.2d at 66 n.4.

	                                       10
Court agreed that the defendant did not consent to the mistrial. Pierson, 426
S.W.3d at 770.

     C. The court of appeals’ per se rule fails to consider the totality of
        the circumstances.

     The court of appeals erred in concluding that a defendant’s failure to

object to a mistrial, despite an adequate opportunity to do so, constitutes

implied consent to the mistrial. Such a holding adopts a per se rule that

ignores this Court’s prior decisions in Torres, Little, and Pierson. This Court

has held that a reviewing court may consider a failure to object in its consent

analysis, but must always consider the totality of the circumstances attendant

to a declaration of mistrial. Here, the court failed to consider the totality of

the circumstances in the record, erroneously isolating Garrels’s failure to

object. The court of appeals’ analysis is flawed, and should be reversed.

III. Under the totality of the circumstances, Garrels did not consent to
     the mistrial.

     Had the court of appeals considered the totality of the circumstances

attendant to the trial judge’s declaration of mistrial, rather than the failure to

object alone, it could not have inferred that Garrels consented to the mistrial.

The record supports the following relevant considerations:

     1. Garrels wished to proceed with trial.

	                                       11
     2. Garrels would not benefit from a mistrial.

     3. The State would benefit from a mistrial.

     4. Both the trial judge and the State understood Garrels did not want a
        mistrial.

     5. Garrels did not expect to be retried.

     The eventual mistrial grew out of an in-trial objection. During direct

examination of the State’s first witness, a police officer, Garrels objected to

the officer testifying as an expert witness because the State had violated a

discovery statute related to the disclosure of expert witnesses. (1 RR 47). The

trial judge agreed that the State violated the statute, and sustained the

objection. (1 RR 52, 55-56). It should be emphasized that Garrels’s objection

called for the exclusion of expert testimony. And after the trial judge

sustained the objection, Garrels expected that the testimony would be

excluded. The prosecutor suggested that the trial judge had three options;

exclude the testimony, grant the State’s continuance, or allow the testimony.

(1 RR 59). Garrels opposed the State’s request for continuance, arguing that

a continuance would allow the State an improper way out of its own mistake.

(1 RR 57).

     Though Garrels did not formally object to the mistrial, her position after

the sustained objection never changed. She wanted to trial judge to follow his

	                                     12
ruling and exclude the expert testimony. The record reflects that the trial

judge and prosecutor both understood that Garrels did not want a mistrial.

An exchange between the trial judge and prosecutor supports this

conclusion:

    Prosecutor:      We would be jeopardy barred, very likely, and in
                     fact be a dismissal.

    Trial Judge:     You think that’s true, even if –

    Prosecutor:      Because the defense has not requested a mistrial. I
                     believe that you need a manifest necessity to
                     declare a mistrial. You are free to grant a mistrial,
                     generally, but I believe that would bar us. If the
                     defense wanted to request a mistrial in lieu of
                     submitting the testimony, that would be different.

    Trial Judge:     Doesn’t sound like that’s what –

    Prosecutor:      Correct. It’s my understanding when the defense
                     doesn’t request a mistrial it needs to be due to
                     manifest necessity.

(1 RR 61-62) (emphasis added). The prosecutor further warned the trial

judge that, if a mistrial was declared, the State would try to re-file the case,

and Garrels would file a motion on double jeopardy grounds. (1 RR 63-64).

The record supports a conclusion that both the trial judge and the State

understood that Garrels did not consent to a mistrial and would object to

further prosecution on double jeopardy grounds. And that is exactly what

	                                      13
happened. Garrels’s trial counsel subsequently stated in a verified affidavit

filed along with the application for writ of habeas corpus that he did not

consent to the mistrial. (SCR 70). Under the totality of the circumstances, it

is unreasonable to infer that Garrels consented to the mistrial.

                                     PRAYER

     Garrels asks this Court to find that she did not consent to the mistrial,

reverse the court of appeals’ opinion, and remand the case so that the court

of appeals can address the issue of manifest necessity. Alternatively, Garrels

asks this Court to reverse the court of appeals’ opinion, and remand the case

so that the court of appeals can address the issue of implied consent under

the totality of the circumstances.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                /s/ Matthew J. DeLuca
                                                Matthew J. DeLuca
                                                State Bar No. 24069601
                                                712 Main St., Suite 2450
                                                Houston, Texas 77002
                                                Tel: (713) 429-4400
                                                Fax: (713) 228-2366
                                                matt@mattdelucalaw.com
                                                Attorney for Appellant

	                                      14
                CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

     I certify that this document contains 2,644 words, and is in compliance

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4.

                                               /s/ Matthew J. DeLuca
                                               Matthew J. DeLuca

                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I certify that a copy of this document was served on the following

parties through the efile.txcourts.gov e-filing system on October 9, 2017:

     Jason Larman
     Assistant District Attorney
     Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office
     207 W. Phillips, 2nd Floor, Conroe, Texas 77301
     jason.larman@mctx.org

     Stacey Soule
     State Prosecuting Attorney
     PO Box 13046, Austin, Texas 78711-3046
     information@spa.texas.gov

                                               /s/ Matthew J. DeLuca
                                               Matthew J. DeLuca

	                                     15