X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A jury convicted Carlos Valdez of two robberies. Pursuant to Texas Penal Code �12.42(d), the jury assessed enhanced 30-year sentences for the robbery convictions after unanimously finding that Valdez “had been finally convicted of at least one [felony] offense on two separate occasions from at least two of the following [enhancement] paragraphs.” The paragraphs listed three types of offenses: 1. “the offense of Burglary of a Vehicle Habitualized or Burglary of a Vehicle Habitualized or Burglary of a Vehicle Habitualized, in Cause Number 6127965 or 60727 or 60726, in the 65th Judicial District Court of El Paso County on the 5th day of August, 1991;” 2. “the offense of Burglary of a Vehicle Enhanced or Burglary of a Vehicle in the 327th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas in Cause Numbers 54622 or 55373 on the 12th day of June, 1989;” 3. “the offense of Burglary or Burglary of a Vehicle, in the 243rd Judicial district Court of El Paso County, Texas in Cause Number 52173243 or 50847243, on the 7th day of March, 1988.” Valdez claimed for the first time on direct appeal that the jury’s enhancement findings violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict. The 8th Court of Appeals rejected his claim. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review on the question of whether the 8th Court of Appeals erred in allowing an enhanced punishment on a less-than-unanimous-jury verdict. HOLDING:Affirmed. Valdez, the court stated, argued that the jury was permitted to assess an enhanced punishment under �12.42(d) “without reaching a consensus as to which enhancement convictions, paragraphs and attendant cause numbers that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Valdez further argued that the jury should have been “required to reach a unanimous decision as to which convictions, if any, could be used to enhance punishment.” The applicable statute, the court stated, to resolve this issue, is �12.42(d), which, in relevant part, provides for enhanced punishment if the defendant has previously been convicted of “two felony offenses.” This unambiguous “two felony offenses” language in Section 12.42(d) is the element on which a jury must be unanimous, the court stated. Thus, the court found that the jury’s finding that Valdez “had been finally convicted of at least one [felony] offense on two separate occasions from at least two” of the enhancement paragraphs is a unanimous finding that Valdez committed at least two felony offenses “even though some of the jurors may have believed that he committed at least one of the felonies set out in paragraphs ‘a’ and ‘b,’ and some of the jurors may have believed that he committed at least one of the felonies set out in paragraphs ‘b’ and ‘c,’ and the rest of the jurors may have believed that he committed at least one of the felonies set out in paragraphs ‘a’ and ‘c.’” “In cases like this, when a combination of more than two felonies is charged for enhancement purposes,” the court held that jury unanimity is not required on any two specific felonies out of this combination. OPINION:Hervey, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which Keller, P.J., Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Holcomb and Cochran, J.J., joined. CONCURRENCE:Womack, J., concurred without a written opinion.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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?

 
 

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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.