Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Tom DeLay was charged in a series of indictments with money laundering, conspiring to commit money laundering and conspiring to make an illegal contribution. DeLay filed motions to quash the counts in the indictments alleging conspiracy to violate the Election Code, contending that they failed to state an offense under Texas law. After a hearing, the district court held that conspiracy to make an illegal contribution was not an offense at the time of the alleged conduct. Accordingly, the district court granted DeLay’s motions to quash and dismissed the counts alleging that he conspired to violate the Election Code. This is an interlocutory appeal brought by the state. HOLDING:Affirmed. Although the state recognizes a line of cases generally restricting the application of the Penal Code’s criminal conspiracy provision to offenses under the Penal Code, it asserts that these cases were wrongly decided. Moore v. State, 545 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Baker v. State, 547 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). “Regardless of how we might view the application of �1.03(b), Moore and Baker are the established precedent of the court of criminal appeals. As an intermediate appellate court, we lack the authority to overrule an opinion of the court of criminal appeals.” See State Oil Co. v. Kahn, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997); In re Smith Barney, Inc., 975 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tex. 1998) (quoting 21′ Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 856 S.W.2d 479, 486 (Tex. App. ��� San Antonio 1993, no writ) (Peeples, J., concurring)). It is the prerogative of the court of criminal appeals alone to overrule its interpretation of a statute. See Kahn, 522 U.S. at 20. Baker appears to be based on questionable reasoning and is arguably in conflict with the history of the criminal conspiracy offense in Texas as well as the growing legislative trend to propagate felony offenses throughout the various statutory codes. The court of criminal appeals may want to revisit its opinion in Baker. But until that time, Baker is the law and we are not free to disregard it. As an alternative to its request that the court directly overrule Baker, the state contends that the holding in Baker should be limited in application to the controlled substances act. The state’s argument focuses on the Court of Criminal Appeals’ analysis of the controlled substances act in Moore. The Baker court relied solely on its interpretation of �1.03(b) of the Penal Code to limit the applicability of Title 4′s conspiracy provision to offenses found within the Penal Code. This holding applies with equal force to any offense found outside the Penal Code whether in the controlled substance act or the Election Code, the court decides. OPINION:Smith, J.; Smith, Puryear and Waldrop, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.